Inquest report cannot replace final police report, Karnataka HC directs police to complete investigation and report before Magistrate

Santhosh died on 9 December 2023 allegedly due to failure to provide proper medical treatment. On the basis of a complaint, the Yesalur Police registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR No. 22/2023) under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

An inquest was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, and the Inquest Report was submitted on 10 December 2023. However, the jurisdictional police did not file any final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

The petitioner therefore sought a writ directing the police to complete the investigation and file a final report or chargesheet so that he could, if necessary, file a protest petition.

1. Whether an Inquest Report submitted by the Executive Magistrate under Section 174 CrPC constitutes the final report concluding proceedings relating to an unnatural death, or whether the police must conduct further investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a mandamus directing the police to complete the investigation in UDR No. 22/2023 and submit the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Section 174 CrPC contemplates a limited inquest to ascertain the apparent cause of death and the circumstances indicating whether the death was unnatural; an Inquest Report is not equivalent to a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

The police retain an independent duty to investigate and, upon completion of the investigation, file either a chargesheet or a closure report before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate.

The Court relied on Manohari v. District Superintendent of Police, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 14216, which held that an Executive Magistrate’s inquest report is merely investigative material and cannot substitute the police final report.

The same principles were held applicable to Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced Section 174 CrPC.

Where a closure report is filed, the victim must receive notice enabling the filing of a protest petition, in accordance with law.

The Court held that the Executive Magistrate’s inquest was only a fact-finding exercise concerning the apparent cause of Santhosh’s death and did not determine whether any offence had been committed or conclude the police investigation.

Since the Inquest Report merely formed part of the investigative material, the police could not treat its submission as the culmination of UDR No. 22/2023.

Applying the principle in Manohari, the Court rejected the State’s contention that no further report was required and held that the Investigating Officer was obliged to consider the Inquest Report along with the other materials, complete the investigation, and submit an appropriate final report under Section 173(2) CrPC—or the corresponding BNSS provision—before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate.

The Court issued a mandamus directing the Police Sub-Inspector, Yesalur Police Station, to complete the investigation and file the final report in UDR No. 22/2023 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sakleshpura.

The Director General of Police was directed to circulate the Manohari judgment, in English and Kannada, along with the present order, to all Investigating Officers and submit a compliance report within four weeks.

The matter was ordered to be re-listed on 25 August 2026 for reporting compliance.