We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the
cognizance taken on the facts and circumstances as coming
forth. We make it very clear that the view taken by the
Additional Sessions Judge or by the learned Magistrate when
taking cognizance or by us, in affirming the cognizance taken,
shall not, in any manner, regulate or govern the trial. Section
161 CrPC statements, obviously, cannot be relied on at the
trial, but definitely could be gone into at the time of
cognizance, since that is the material available before the
Court, as produced by the Police along with the final report.
That the Court is entitled to take cognizance despite a closure
report by the police, requires no reiteration. {Para 12}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.18490 of 2026)
Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of Bihar & Anr.
Dated: OCTOBER 09, 2026.
Leave granted.
2. The appeal is filed by a grieving father against the
order of the High Court quashing the cognizance taken under
Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code1 against the 2nd
respondent-accused; in an incident where the appellant’s son
drowned to death.
3. We heard learned Counsel for the appellant,
respondent-State and the 2nd respondent.
4. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, at the outset,
submitted that there was cognizance taken by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, IV, Darbhanga and hence, this appeal
1 In short ‘IPC’
Page 2 of 8
has become infructuous. Learned Counsel for the appellant
alertly pointed out that, in fact, the cognizance, is taken note of
in the impugned order at paragraph 4. The operative portion
not only set aside the revisional order of the 7th Additional
Sessions Judge, Darbhanga but also the order of the learned
Magistrate accepting the final report of the Police and
directing the protest petition to be registered as a complaint
case. Hence, there is no cognizance taken as of now and no
protest complaint pending.
5. We notice, on the facts of this case, that the appellant
was the first informant who spoke of the deceased having been
taken by the 2nd respondent from his house for a walk.
Subsequently, one Ashok Chaudhary informed the family
members that the first informant’s son was found drowning
near the State Boring and that despite his best efforts to save
the drowning boy, he could not. The father rushed to the site
and arranged boatmen to carry out a search in the river. The
attempts of the boatmen turned unsuccessful, since the boy
had disappeared having been swept away in the currents. This
was the First Information Statement leading to the FIR, as seen
from Annexure P1.
Page 3 of 8
6. The Police conducted the investigation and filed a final
report, upon which, the Court accepted the final report and
directed the protest petition filed to be numbered as
complaint by order dated 29.10.2021 and posted the
complaint on 01.12.2021 for examination of the complainant,
who was directed to be present.
7. A revision was taken from the order of the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, IV, Darbhanga, produced at Annexure
P5, which was disposed of by Annexure P6; by a detailed
order. The 7th Additional Sessions Court directed the
Magistrate’s Court to reconsider the final report, pointing out
the compelling circumstances which could commend
cognizance in the case. The learned Magistrate, on reexamination
of the materials, took cognizance, which has now
been set at naught by the High Court; according to us, in a very
casual manner, totally ignoring the compelling circumstances
as has been brought out in the revisional order of the 7th
Additional Sessions Judge.
8. On the consequence of a final report filed by the Police,
which is termed a ‘closure report’, we extract herein
paragraph 16 of Brajesh Kumar alias Birjesh Kumar Singh v.
Page 4 of 8
State of Bihar2, (authored by one of us, K. Vinod Chandran, J.)
:-
‘16. Ram Naresh Prasad v. State of Jharkhand(2009) 11 SCC 299
held that when the police file a report, colloquially termed
a ‘closure report’; finding no sustainable case made out,
the Court cannot direct a charge sheet to be filed, but
could always take cognizance on the basis of the material
in the report or direct further investigation. H.S. Bains v.
State (U.T. of Chandigarh) (1980) 4 SCC 631 & Ramswaroop Soni
v. State of M.P. (2020) 18 SCC 327 reiterated that when a closure
report is filed finding no offence made out, the Court has
three options; (i) to accept the same and close the
proceedings or (ii) take cognizance of the matter on the
materials in the report or (iii) direct further investigation.
It is thus open to the Magistrate on submission of a closure
report to look into the material facts disclosed in the report
and form an opinion as to whether it constitutes an offence
and take cognizance of the offence under Section
190(1)(b). To buttress this position, Abhinandan Jha1967 SCC
OnLine SC 107 made reference to Section 169 of the Code
which provides that even if the police officer finds on
investigation that there is no reasonable ground or
sufficient evidence to put the accused on trial, the officer
while releasing the accused has to take a bond for
appearance before the Magistrate, if required. The
primacy of the Court to take cognizance or deny it is the
law discernible from the very provisions of the CrPC.’
9. With the above principle in mind, we look at the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge. The impugned
order first found that the postmortem did not suggest anything
sinister, since the ‘death was due to asphyxia and ventricular
fibrillation as a result of drowning in water’. We are afraid that
the assumption is wrong, insofar as even if a person is pushed
2 2026 SCC OnLine 1311
Page 5 of 8
into the water deliberately with the intention of drowning him,
there would be nothing sinister coming forth in the
postmortem report, which however, has to be tested on the
attendant circumstances. Merely because the postmortem
indicated death by drowning, it cannot be assumed that there
was absolutely no foul play, since the specific contention taken
up was that the deceased was taken by the 2nd respondent, and
a little later, he was found drowning and there were attempts
by third parties to save him. There were two witnesses who
also spoke of having seen the 2nd respondent fleeing from the
scene of occurrence; which makes it sinister and a trial,
expedient to unravel the mystery regarding the death.
Especially when the 2nd respondent who took the deceased
from his house, with whom he was last seen, should proffer an
explanation, more so, when he was found running away from
the spot.
10. The further reasoning in the impugned judgment is that
the FIR was lodged after the father of the deceased received
information of the drowning of his son, which information was
not disclosed in the FIR. A reading of the FIR, produced as
Annexure P1, clearly indicates that the information was passed
on to the father through one Ashok Chaudhary, who informed
Page 6 of 8
the family members of the appellant. On such information
having been received, he rushed to the spot and arranged
boatmen to search for his son. The search having turned futile,
a complaint was registered, specifically speaking of the 2nd
respondent having picked up the deceased from the
appellant’s doorsteps, and a little later, Ashok Chaudhary
having informed the drowning of his son. The finding of the
High Court is flawed insofar as the documents having not been
read properly.
11. We also find that the High Court has not looked at the
order of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, despite
it being noticed in the order; which lists out the compelling
circumstances to suspect the closure report filed by the Police.
We would not explain the circumstances which were relied
upon by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in
Annexure P6-order to direct reconsideration of the issue by
the learned Magistrate; lest the observations, at least by
default, govern the trial. Suffice it to notice that the revisional
order was in detail and specifically dealt with the statements
recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure3
and took a prima facie view that there was material to enable a
3 In short ‘CrPC’
trial. The decisions with respect to cognizance despite a
closure report, were also noticed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, all of which were casually brushed aside by the High
Court. The Additional Sessions Judge found very compelling
circumstances, on a prima facie consideration and the
revisional order directed consideration of the final report
afresh by the learned Magistrate.
12. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the
cognizance taken on the facts and circumstances as coming
forth. We make it very clear that the view taken by the
Additional Sessions Judge or by the learned Magistrate when
taking cognizance or by us, in affirming the cognizance taken,
shall not, in any manner, regulate or govern the trial. Section
161 CrPC statements, obviously, cannot be relied on at the
trial, but definitely could be gone into at the time of
cognizance, since that is the material available before the
Court, as produced by the Police along with the final report.
That the Court is entitled to take cognizance despite a closure
report by the police, requires no reiteration.
13. We, hence, proceed to set aside the order of the High
Court and remand the matter for expediting the trial. The 2nd
respondent shall appear before the learned Magistrate, within
two weeks who shall carry out the committal proceedings in
accordance with law. If the 2nd respondent does not appear
within the time provided, then he shall be taken into custody
and produced before the learned Magistrate for appropriate
steps. On appearance or on production, the 2nd respondent
shall be released on bail on such conditions as the Court
deems fit, subject to co-operation in the trial.
14. The appeal stands allowed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.
.......…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
....……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 09, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment