Telangana High Court Directs Police To File Final Reports In Unnatural Death Cases Before Judicial Magistrate, Not Executive Magistrate
The Telangana High Court has held that where the police conduct an investigation into an unnatural or accidental death under Section 174 CrPC, the final report must be filed before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and not before an Executive Magistrate.
The Court further held that the person who first gave information regarding the death must be informed of the action taken by the police.
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao issued the direction while dealing with a petition filed by a woman whose husband died after falling into a ditch dug for laying a water pipeline.
Though the Court declined to order reinvestigation after more than a decade, it directed that henceforth the procedure under Section 173(2) CrPC, now Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, must be followed even for investigations conducted under Section 174 CrPC, now Section 194 BNSS.
The Court held:
"Thus, in the light of the above decision and Section 173(3) of Cr.P.C., in the considered view of this Court, the respondent police authorities ought to have given notice to the complainant and file a final report before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, and filing a final report before the 5th respondent is per se untenable and that too violation of statutory right of the affected person... Thus, the final report should be filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate of First Class by duly intimating the affected party."
The Court directed its Registry to serve a copy of the order on the Director General of Police, with a request that it be communicated to all police stations.
The petitioner, R. Jaya Laxmi, approached the High Court challenging the closure of an FIR registered following the death of her husband, R. Laxman, in May 2014. She sought reinvestigation and action against the contractor which had dug the ditch and the authority controlling the pipeline project.
According to the petitioner, her 55-year-old husband was working as a Telephone Mechanic with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. On the night of May 18, 2014, he left home to visit a medical shop at Yapral bus stop. When he reached the main road at Yapral, he fell into a ditch dug for laying a water pipeline and suffered severe head injuries, resulting in his death.
On her complaint, Alwal Police registered Crime No.445 of 2014 under Section 174 CrPC. The petitioner alleged that the ditch had been left without necessary safety measures and precautions by the contractor engaged for laying pipelines under the Godavari Drinking Water Supply Project Phase-I.
She contended that the contractor had acted negligently and that the authority controlling its work had failed to protect the life and liberty of the public. However, according to her, the police closed the case without properly investigating the possible liability of the contractor and without giving her notice. The final report was filed before the Mandal Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate.
The State opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation found no foul play. According to the police, Laxman had accidentally slipped while walking beside the water pipeline ditch, sustained severe bleeding injuries to his head and died at the spot.
The State submitted that the police had examined witnesses, including the petitioner and her children, conducted an autopsy and obtained the requisite permission from the Assistant Commissioner of Police before filing the final report. Since no cognizable offence was disclosed, the police maintained that closure of the proceedings was justified.
The High Court agreed that an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC has a limited scope. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, it said the purpose of such proceedings is essentially to ascertain the apparent cause of death and whether it was accidental, suicidal, homicidal or otherwise unnatural.
However, the Court drew a distinction between conducting an inquest and filing the final report after investigation. It observed:
"However, the filing of a final report before the Executive Magistrate is not a procedure contemplated under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and the said provision does not prescribe that final report has to be filed before the Executive Magistrate. Where the material collected during the course of investigation do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, the appropriate recourse would be only filing a final report before the jurisdictional Judicial First Class Magistrate."
The Court relied on the Madras High Court's decision in Manohari v. District Superintendent of Police, which held that after completing an investigation where no offence is found, the investigating officer must submit the final report to the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of First Class rather than the Executive Magistrate.
It also referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., Pedda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh on the limited nature and purpose of proceedings under Section 174 CrPC.
Applying these principles, the Court found that while the police had conducted the investigation into Laxman's death, they had incorrectly filed the final report before the Executive Magistrate. Section 173(2) CrPC required the police report on completion of investigation to be forwarded to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a police report.
The Court also noted that Section 173 requires the police to communicate the action taken to the person who first supplied information regarding the commission of the offence. It therefore held that filing the closure report before the Executive Magistrate without duly intimating the affected party was "per se untenable" and violated the affected person's statutory right.
However, the Court refused the petitioner's request for reinvestigation, considering the substantial passage of time since the incident in 2014. It observed that although she could have challenged the report before the competent Magistrate, the writ petition itself had remained pending for several years and reopening the matter at this stage would be futile.
The writ petition was accordingly closed. The Court nevertheless issued a prospective direction that henceforth, even where an investigation is conducted under Section 174 CrPC, the final report must be filed before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate of First Class under Section 173(2) CrPC. The corresponding provisions under the BNSS are Sections 194 and 193(3), respectively.
Case Title: R. Jaya Laxmi v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 5775 of 2015
Date: July 29, 2026
Appearance: Pulla Rao Yellanki for the petitioner; Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4; K. Ravi Mahender, Standing Counsel for GHMC, for Respondent No. 7.