INTRODUCTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently delivered an important Judgment clarifying the distinct evidentiary boundaries governing police closure reports, revisional powers and the stage of taking cognizance under criminal procedure. In the case of Mrityunjay Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Anr. (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18490 of 2026), a Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran on October 09, 2026, allowed the Appeal of a grieving father and set aside a casual High Court Order. The Apex Court held that while statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence at trial, they can certainly be looked into by a Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the judiciary retains absolute primacy to take cognizance based on materials in a police closure report, regardless of whether police recommended dropping proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS
The Prosecution’s case originated from a tragic incident where the Appellant’s young son was taken away from his house by the 2nd Respondent for a walk. Shortly afterwards, an individual named Ashok Chaudhary informed the family that the boy was found drowning near a State Boring and could not be saved despite rescue efforts. The father rushed to the site and arranged boatmen to search the river, but their attempts proved unsuccessful as the child was swept away by strong currents. This prompted the initial First Information Statement and subsequent FIR alleging foul play.
Following an investigation, the police filed a final “closure” report concluding no sustainable case was made out. The Judicial Magistrate First Class accepted the final report, directed a protest petition to be numbered as a Complaint and scheduled it for examination. However, upon a revision petition filed before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, the Sessions Court pointed out compelling circumstances and directed the Magistrate to re-examine the matter. On re-examination, the Magistrate took cognizance of offenses under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The 2nd Respondent challenged this before the High Court, which casually set aside the cognizance order and the revisional directions. Aggrieved by this setback, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
The Supreme Court was called upon to resolve key procedural and evidentiary questions:
- Whether a High Court can legally quash a Magistrate’s cognizance order, taken after a revisional court points out compelling circumstances, by casually dismissing police case diaries and postmortem findings.
- Whether police statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC can be legally evaluated by a court at the stage of taking cognizance, despite their inadmissibility as substantive evidence during a trial.
- What options are legally available to a Magistrate when the police submit a final closure report and whether a court is bound to accept a closure report when prima facie material points toward an offense.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court thoroughly evaluated the procedural history, case records and statutory provisions, arriving at several foundational legal conclusions:
- Evidentiary Value of Section 161 CrPC Statements at Cognizance Stage: The Bench clarified a crucial distinction in criminal jurisprudence: while statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC cannot be utilized as substantive evidence during a trial, they can certainly be examined by a court when deciding whether to take cognizance. Such statements form part of the material collected by police along with the final report and serve as a valid basis for judicial application of mind.
- Magisterial Options Upon Receipt of a Closure Report: Reaffirming precedents such as Brajesh Kumar alias Birjesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2026 SCC OnLine 1311, S. Bains v. State, (1980) 4 SCC 631 and Ramswaroop Soni v. State of M.P. (2020) 18 SCC 327, the Court reiterated that when police submit a closure report finding no offense, a Magistrate has three distinct options:
- accept the report and close the proceedings,
- take cognizance of the matter based on materials in the report under Section 190(1)(b) of the CrPC, or
- direct further investigation. The primacy of the judiciary to accept or deny cognizance remains absolute.
- Erroneous High Court Assumptions on Postmortem Reports: The Supreme Court heavily criticized the High Court for assuming that a postmortem reflecting death by asphyxia and drowning entirely ruled out foul play. The Bench observed that even if a person is deliberately pushed into water with homicidal intent, the postmortem findings would still indicate drowning. Such assumptions must be tested against attendant circumstances, especially when witnesses saw the accused fleeing and the accused was the last person seen with the victim.
- Flawed Misreading of FIR Details: The Apex Court noted that the High Court fell into error by incorrectly claiming the FIR omitted details of how the father received information. A proper reading of the FIR clearly established that the informant promptly detailed how Ashok Chaudhary broke the news and how immediate search operations were initiated.
- Remand and Directions for Speedy Trial: Finding the High Court’s interference unwarranted, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court order and restored the process. The Court directed the 2nd respondent-accused to appear before the Magistrate within two weeks to undergo committal proceedings, failing which he would be taken into custody.
CONCLUSION
Holding that a Magistrate is fully empowered to take cognizance despite a police closure report if compelling circumstances exist, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the High Court’s interference. The matter was remanded for expediting committal proceedings and trial, with strict instructions that prior observations regarding cognizance shall not prejudice or govern the merits of the trial.
ANIKET KUMAR PARCHA
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
EDITOR’S COMMENT
This Judgment serves as an important precedent reinforcing judicial independence at the threshold stage of criminal prosecutions, clarifying that preliminary police conclusions cannot override strong prima facie material and statements available in case records.
SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Advocate & Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “
Alert video ⚠️ What Happens Before FIR? | Know Your Rights” can be viewed at the link below: