Madras High Court Suspends DySP for Failing to File Closure Report, Slams ‘Blatant Violation of Rule of Law’ in Police Investigation
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras Single Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan directed the suspension of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and ordered disciplinary proceedings against several officers for failing to comply with mandatory procedures under criminal law. The Court held that the investigation into a complaint remained unresolved for nearly seven years and observed that the closure report was filed only after the initiation of judicial scrutiny. The Court issued specific directions to the Director General of Police, Chennai, including the suspension of the concerned officer, institution of disciplinary action against other listed officers, and submission of an action-taken report.
The matter concerned a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No.688 of 2018 from the jurisdictional police to the CBCID or any other independent agency. The petitioner was the defacto complainant who had reported theft of valuable jewels from her residence. Pursuant to her complaint, the respondent police registered a First Information Report on 05.10.2018 under Crime No.688 of 2018.
According to the petitioner, no substantial progress had been made in the investigation for several years. Alleging inaction and delay, the petitioner moved the Court to seek a transfer of the case to an independent investigative body.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.07.2025, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), upon instructions, submitted that the investigation had been completed and that the complaint had been closed. It was revealed that a closure report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 05.07.2025.
The Court noted that the FIR had been pending since 05.10.2018, with no closure report filed or communicated to the defacto complainant until after the Criminal Original Petition was initiated. The timing of the closure report filing, which occurred only after the Court issued notice, prompted judicial concern.
The Court directed the Government Advocate to submit the list of Inspectors of Police who had served at the Choolaimedu Police Station from the date of FIR registration to the date of the closure report. In compliance with this direction, the State provided a list identifying thirteen officers who had served in the relevant period.
Further inquiry revealed that the closure decision had been taken on 26.12.2022 by one Mr. Karnan, the officer-in-charge during the relevant period. However, the closure report was neither filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 173(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor communicated to the complainant, as required under Section 173(2)(ii). The report was filed only after the present petition came under judicial scrutiny.
The Court took note of the provisions of Section 173 CrPC, which mandates timely filing of a final report upon completion of investigation and communication of action taken to the informant. The Court stated that the Investigating Officer had not fulfilled these obligations despite the investigation being concluded in December 2022.
The judgment recorded that there was a delay of over two years between the closure decision and the actual filing of the closure report. Moreover, the absence of any notice to the complainant under Section 173(2)(ii) was stated as a grave procedural violation.
The Court reviewed the statutory framework and cited relevant provisions from Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the legal mandate governing police reports and closure procedures. The judgment also referred to precedent, including Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No.1511 of 2024, and Feran Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2024, to underscore that the filing of a final report is a mandatory statutory requirement.
The Court noted that similar procedural lapses had occurred in other cases, indicating a pattern of administrative negligence. The delay in the current matter was particularly troubling as it involved nearly seven years of inaction, with the closure report being filed only after judicial intervention.
The Court recorded "This submission came as a surprise to the Court, particularly in view of the fact that the FIR had been registered as early as 05.10.2018, and that there had been a long interregnum of nearly seven years during which no closure report was either filed before the Magistrate or communicated to the de facto complainant."
The Court further noted, "The failure to file a timely report and to inform the complainant constitutes a serious procedural violation and reflects a grave dereliction of duty."
"It is particularly disturbing that an FIR registered as early as 2018 was closed internally in 2022 without any intimation to the complainant or submission of the final report to the Court for nearly three years."
"The inaction on the part of the officer who closed the complaint, as well as the indifference of the subsequent officers who failed to verify and rectify the lapse, demonstrates a clear disregard for the rule of law."
"It is incumbent on the part of the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of the said provisions, as non-compliance thereof gives rise to many legal issues in the court of law."
"This approach reflects a serious lapse in adherence to legal procedure and has resulted in the denial of justice to the affected parties."
"Had the petitioner not approached this Court, the inaction would have continued indefinitely, and the closure may have never been brought on record."
"Such dereliction of duty necessitates appropriate remedial action."
The Court issued the following directions: -
The Director General of Police, Chennai, is directed to place Mr.Karnan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chennai Central Railway, under suspension forthwith. The suspension was directed for his failure to submit the closure report in time and for non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court also directed that the Director General of Police initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officers identified in serial numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, and 13 of the list furnished to the Court. The basis for this action was their failure to review pending cases and to take necessary steps for submitting closure reports or informing complainants.
The Court directed the Director General of Police to file a comprehensive action taken report on or before 14.08.2025, detailing the suspension, initiation of disciplinary measures, and proposed steps to prevent such lapses in the future.
Further, the Registry was instructed to forward a copy of the order to the Director General of Police for immediate compliance. The matter was posted for further proceedings on 14.08.2025 for the purpose of reviewing the action taken report.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohammed Shafith, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
Case Title: S.H. Zarina Begum v. The State
Case Number: Crl.O.P.No.19180 of 2025
Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan
