Magistrate Can't Reject Negative Final Report Solely Based On Protest Petition: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Cognizance In Rape Case

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot reject a negative final report and take cognizance of offences solely on the basis of the averments made in a protest petition, without meaningfully considering the material collected during investigation and recording reasons for disagreeing with the investigating officer's conclusions.

Holding that the cognizance order suffered from non-application of mind, Justice Farjand Ali quashed the proceedings against two accused in a rape case after accepting the police's negative final report.

The Court observed that while departing from the conclusion of the investigating agency, the order must disclose due and meaningful consideration of the material collected during investigation. It opined that judicial discretion could not be exercised in an unstructured or mechanical manner.

In the present case, the Court highlighted that the Magistrate relied upon the averments in the protest petition, without indicating which finding of the investigating officer was erroneous, perverse, unsupported by record or otherwise, unacceptable in law.

“The Court is unable to persuade itself to accept that mere reiteration of allegations contained in the protest petition could, by itself, furnish a valid substitute for judicial consideration of the investigation record.”

For context, an FIR was registered against the petitioner alleging rape. Police submitted a negative final report against which the complainant had filed a protest petition. The concerned Magistrate disagreed with the final report, and took cognizance of the offences. This order was challenged before the Court.

It was argued by the petitioner that no cogent reason was recorded by the Magistrate while discarding the negative final report, and cognizance was taken solely based on the allegations reiterated in the protest petition.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the Magistrate was not bound by the conclusion reached by the Investigating Agency and it had ample jurisdiction to take cognizance, despite a negative report.

However, while disagreeing with the negative report, the Magistrate should have done meaningful consideration of the extensive investigation and reasons had to be recorded for such disagreement.

“…filing of a protest petition does not eclipse the investigation conducted by the police, nor does it relieve the Court of its obligation to evaluate the material collected during such investigation…The learned Magistrate, however, appears to have accepted the protest petition version in its entirety while virtually ignoring the investigation record.”

The Court held that such an approach by the Magistrate fell short of the standards expected from a judicial order. While the Magistrate had jurisdiction to disagree with the final report, exercise of such jurisdiction was not supported by cogent reasons.

“The factual features noticed by the Investigating Officer strike at the very substratum of the prosecution case and, in the considered opinion of this Court, deserved serious judicial consideration before a contrary view was adopted. The failure of the learned Magistrate to advert to these crucial aspects while disagreeing with the Final Report renders the order of cognizance legally vulnerable and unsustainable.”

In this background, it was held that order taking cognizance was vitiated due to non-consideration of relevant material, and failure to record reasons for disagreement with final report.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the cognizance was set aside. The Court directed recalling the warrant of arrests against the petitioner.

Title: Manisha Jain v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 253

Click Here To Read/Download Order