Kerala High Court
Ranjit Kumar Thakur vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2026
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 1808 OF 2025
CRIME NO.901/2025 OF Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
YAHU
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O UMMER, THARAMMAL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM POST,
TANUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679321
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
SMT.K.C.KHAMARUNNISA
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PALAKKAD - KOZHIKODE HWY, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION
KONDOTTY POST, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638
OTHER PRESENT:
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..2..
2026:KER:32829
ADV SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY (AMICUS CURIAE)
ADV N R SANGEETHA RAJ PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.04.2026, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.).247/2026, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..3..
2026:KER:32829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(CRL.) NO. 247 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
RANJIT KUMAR THAKUR
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O SHATRUGHAN THAKUR, HOUSE NO. 0036, GANDHWARI,
PANDAUL, MADHUBANI DISTRICT, BIHAR ., PIN -
847234
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SHRI.SHEHIN S.
SMT.RESHMA DAS P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695010
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..4..
2026:KER:32829
3 THE CRIME BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE, CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (CBCID),
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF CBCID, PAZHAVANGADI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695008
4 THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
COASTAL POLICE, COASTAL POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682001
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
COASTAL POLICE STATION, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 682001
ADV SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY (AMICUS CURIAE)
ADV N R SANGEETHA RAJ PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.04.2026, ALONG WITH WP(Crl.).1808/2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..5..
2026:KER:32829
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025
and 247 of 2026
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in these Writ Petitions seek a direction
to conduct an investigation under the supervision of higher
police officials. In both cases, the Police registered FIRs
under Section 173 of the Baratiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS for short) (Section 154 Cr.P.C.) and
submitted them before the concerned Sub-Divisional
Magistrate as part of the enquiry into the apparent cause
of death of the deceased. The deceased in WP(C) No.1808
of 2025 was found hanging at his rented residence on
03.08.2025. The dead body of the deceased in WP(C)
No.247 of 2026 was found floating in the sea about 25
nautical miles west of Kochi coast on 13.10.2025.
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..6..
2026:KER:32829
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that no FIR is required to be registered under
Section 173 of the BNSS by the Police upon receipt of
information regarding an unnatural death, and that the
police officer is only required to intimate the Executive
Magistrate about the receipt of such information. In
Kerala, the practice is that such information is furnished
by the Police to the Executive Magistrate in the form used
for registering FIRs in cognizable offences. The learned
counsel further submitted that when a police officer
receives specific information from an informant giving him
reason to suspect that the death is homicidal, an FIR
within the meaning of Section 173 of the BNSS is to be
registered, simultaneously intimating the Executive
Magistrate about the apparent cause of death.
3. This Court appointed Sri. Suman Chakravarthy
as Amicus Curiae.
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..7..
2026:KER:32829
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus
Curiae.
5. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that when
the officer-in-charge of a police station receives
information regarding an unnatural death for the purpose
of conducting an enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
(Section 194 of the BNSS), no FIR within the meaning of
Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Section 173 of the BNSS) is required
to be registered. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted
that it is not the practice in many States in India to
register an FIR initially in cases of unnatural death. The
learned Amicus submitted that in the State of Karnataka, a
UDR (Unnatural Death Report) case is initially registered
and a report, along with the inquest report, is sent to the
Executive Magistrate. When a cognizable offence is
revealed, the proceedings in the UDR case come to an end,
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..8..
2026:KER:32829
an FIR is registered, and the UDR proceedings merge with
the police investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C.
The learned Amicus submitted that the report of
investigation regarding the apparent cause of death is to
be submitted by the police in KPF Form No.72 of the Police
Manual. According to the learned Amicus, an FIR under
Section 154 r/w Section 157 Cr.P.C. need not be registered
for commencing an enquiry regarding unnatural death in
the course of ascertaining the apparent cause of death.
The learned Amicus submitted that the inquest report
number (not the FIR number) is to be entered in Column
11 of the FIR registered under Section 154 r/w Section 157
of the Cr.P.C. The learned Amicus further submitted that
this makes it evident that the present practice of
registering FIRs under Section 154 read with Section 157
of the Cr.P.C. in the course of enquiry regarding the
apparent cause of death is to be avoided. The learned
Amicus submitted that the “investigation” contemplated
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..9..
2026:KER:32829
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is not an investigation into a
cognizable offence, but only an enquiry into the apparent
cause of death. The learned Amicus submitted that the
investigation within the meaning of Section 154 Cr.PC is
the investigation into a cognizable offence.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relying
on Radhamma v. Director General of Police [2025 KHC
Online 2052] submitted that the report prepared under
Section 174 Cr.PC is to be submitted before the
Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate and not before the
Executive Magistrate.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the “investigation” contemplated under
Sections 174 to 176 Cr.P.C. is the same as the investigation
referred to in Sections 154 to 173 Cr.P.C. It is therefore
submitted that the result of the investigation carried out
under Sections 174 to 176 Cr.P.C. shall be submitted to the
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..10..
2026:KER:32829
jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C
8. The learned Amicus countered and submitted
that the investigation referred to under Section 173(2)
Cr.PC commences with the recording of first information
under Section 154 Cr.PC and culminates with the filing of
“police report” as defined under Section 2(r) of the Cr.PC.
The learned Amicus submitted that the enquiry under
Sections 174 to 176 Cr.P.C. is confined to ascertaining the
apparent cause of death and that it would merge with the
investigation under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the event an
FIR is registered. The learned Amicus submitted that the
powers of the Police for the purpose of investigation under
Section 174 Cr.P.C. are different from the investigation
conducted after registration of an FIR, as the latter is an
investigation into a cognizable offence, whereas the former
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..11..
2026:KER:32829
is an enquiry conducted for ascertaining the apparent
cause of death.
9. The objectives of the proceedings under Section
174 Cr.P.C. and Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. are distinct and
different. The enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is limited
in scope and is confined to ascertaining the apparent cause
of death. This should not be equated with the investigation
into a cognizable offence under Sections 160 and 161 of
the Cr.PC. The procedure under Section 174 Cr.PC is for
the purpose of discovering the apparent cause of death.
Section 174(4) Cr.PC empowers the District Magistrate,
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive
Magistrate empowered in this behalf to hold inquest. The
object of these proceedings is to ascertain whether, in a
given case, the death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal,
or caused by an animal, and in what manner or by what
weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..12..
2026:KER:32829
have been inflicted. The evidence taken during these
proceedings is very limited. An analysis of Chapter XII of
the Cr.PC reveals that the provisions under Section 154
r/w Section 157 and Section 174 cater to different
procedural objectives. In the case of Section 154, receipt
of information regarding the commission of a cognizable
offence leads to the registration of an FIR (Section 157
Cr.P.C.), and culminates in the filing of a police report as
defined under Section 2(r) Cr.P.C. under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. This is normally referred to as ‘final report’. In
contrast, an investigation under Section 174 of the Cr.PC
focusses on ascertaining the apparent cause of death in
cases of unnatural or suspicious death.
10. In Podda Narayana v. State Of Andhra
Pradesh [(1975) 4 SCC 153] this aspect was well
explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant
portion of the judgment is extracted below:-
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..13..
2026:KER:32829
“11. A perusal of this provision would clearly show that
the object of the proceedings under Section 174 is
merely to ascertain whether a person has died under
suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if
so what is the apparent cause of the death. The
question regarding the details as to how the deceased
was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circumstances he was assaulted appears to us to be
foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings
under Section 174. In these circumstances, therefore,
neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the
police to have mentioned these details in the inquest
report….”
11. In George v. State of Kerala [(1998) 4 SCC 605
] the Supreme Court held that at the stage of inquest
under Section 174 Cr.PC, the Investigating Officer is not
obliged to investigate or ascertain as to who were the
assailants. In Suresh Rai v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4
SCC 84] the Supreme Court reiterated these principles.
12. In Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State Of
Chhatisgarh [(2016) 9 SCC 1], the Supreme Court
observed thus:-
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..14..
2026:KER:32829
“19.The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited
scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to
ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is
the apparent cause of the death. The question
regarding the details as to how the deceased was
assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit
and scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the
Code. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary
for the police to mention those details in the inquest
report. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the
details of the overt acts in the inquest report. The
procedure under Section 174 is for the purpose of
discovering the cause of death, and the evidence taken
was very short. When the body cannot be found or has
been buried, there can be no investigation under
Section 174. This section is intended to apply to cases
in which an inquest is necessary. The proceedings
under this section should be kept more distinct from
the proceedings taken on the complaint. Whereas the
starting point of the powers of the police was changed
from the power of the officer in charge of a police
station to investigate into a cognizable offence without
the order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first
information regarding commission of a cognizable
offence, whether received orally or in writing, into
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..15..
2026:KER:32829
writing. As such, the objective of such placement of
provisions was clear which was to ensure that the
recording of the first information should be the
starting point of any investigation by the police. The
purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of
criminal investigation into motion, which culminates
with filing of the police report and only after
registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a
case, collection of evidence during investigation and
formation of the final opinion is the sequence which
results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the
Code. ….
20. In this view of the matter, Sections 174 and 175 of the
Code afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose
of “inquiries” in cases of accidental or suspicious
deaths and are entirely distinct from the
“investigation” under Section 157 of the Code wherein
if an officer in charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered to investigate, he shall proceed in person
to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances
of the case. In the case on hand, an inquiry under
Section 174 of the Code was convened initially in
order to ascertain whether the death is natural or
unnatural. The learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants claims that the earlier information
regarding unnatural death amounted to FIR under
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..16..
2026:KER:32829
Section 154 of the Code which was investigated by the
police and thereafter the case was closed.
21. On a careful scrutiny of materials on record, the
inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural
cannot be categorised under information relating to
the commission of a cognizable offence within the
meaning and import of Section 154 of the Code. On
information received by Police Station Mulana, the
police made an inquiry as contemplated under Section
174 of the Code. After holding an inquiry, the police
submitted its report before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Ambala stating therein that it was a case
of hanging and no cognizable offence is found to have
been committed. In the report, it was also mentioned
that the father of the deceased, R.P. Sharma (PW 1)
does not want to take any further action in the matter.
In view of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show
that what was undertaken by the police was an inquiry
under Section 174 of the Code which was limited to
the extent of natural or unnatural death and the case
was closed. Whereas, the condition precedent for
recording of FIR is that there must be an information
and that information must disclose a cognizable
offence and in the case on hand, it leaves no matter of
doubt that the intimation was an information of the
nature contemplated under Section 174 of the Code
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..17..
2026:KER:32829
and it could not be categorised as information
disclosing a cognizable offence. Also, there is no
material to show that the police after conducting
investigation submitted a report under Section 173 of
the Code as contemplated, before the competent
authority, which accepted the said report and closed
the case.
22. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the
investigation on an inquiry under Section 174 of the
Code is distinct from the investigation as
contemplated under Section 154 of the Code relating
to commission of a cognizable offence and in the case
on hand there was no FIR registered with Police
Station Mulana neither any investigation nor any
report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted.
….” (Emphasis supplied)
13. In Amit Kumar v. Union of India [2025 SCC
Online SC 631] the Supreme Court held thus:-
“22. The proceedings under S.174 of the CrPC should
be kept more distinct from the proceedings taken on
the complaint. Investigation under S.174 is limited in
scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the
apparent cause of death and should not be equated
with investigation into cognizable offences under
S.160 and S.161 of the CrPC respectively. The
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..18..
2026:KER:32829
procedure under S.174 of the CrPC is for the purpose
of discovering the cause of death and the evidence
taken is very short. Sub-section (4) of S.174
empowers any District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional
Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate
specially empowered in this behalf by the State
Government or the District Magistrate to hold
inquest. The inquest held by the magistrate under
S.174 is distinct from an inquiry under S.202.
23. The inquest proceedings are concerned with
discovering whether in a given case the death was
accidental, suicidal, homicidal, or caused by an
animal and in what manner or by what weapon or
instrument the injuries on the body appear to have
been inflicted, therefore, the evidence taken is very
short. (See: Chaman Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1940 Lah.
210, at 214)
24. The investigations conducted under S.154 and S.174
of the CrPC respectively are distinct in nature and
purpose. A study of Chapter XII of the CrPC reveals
that these two provisions cater to different
procedural objectives. The former begins with
information about the commission of a cognizable
offence referred to in S.154(1), culminating in
registration of FIR and ending with filing of a
chargesheet / challan before the competent court
under S.173 or a final report as the case may be. This
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..19..
2026:KER:32829
procedure to be undertaken for initiating an
investigation into a cognizable offence has been
explained by this Court in Ashok Kumar Todi v.
Kishwar Jahan, (2011) 3 SCC 758, in the following
words: “48. Under the scheme of the Code,
investigation commences with lodgement of
information relating to the commission of an offence.
If it is a cognizable offence, the officer in charge of
the police station, to whom the information is
supplied orally has a statutory duty to reduce it to
writing and get the signature of the informant. He
shall enter the substance of the information, whether
given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, in
a book prescribed by the State in that behalf. The
officer – in – charge has no escape from doing so if
the offence mentioned therein is a cognizable offence
and whether or not such offence was committed
within the limits of that police station. (…)”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Further, the objective of proceedings under S.154(1)
has been succinctly explained by this Court in Manoj
Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 9 SCC
1, as under: “19. (…) Whereas the starting point of
the powers of the police was changed from the power
of the officer in charge of a police station to
investigate into a cognizable offence without the
order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..20..
2026:KER:32829
information regarding commission of a cognizable
offence, whether received orally or in writing, into
writing. As such, the objective of such placement of
provisions was clear which was to ensure that the
recording of the first information should be the
starting point of any investigation by the police. The
purpose of registering FIR is to set the machinery of
criminal investigation into motion, which culminates
with filing of the police report and only after
registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a
case, collection of evidence during investigation and
formation of the final opinion is the sequence which
results in filing of a report under S.173 of the Code.
(…)” (Emphasis supplied)
26. In contrast, an investigation under S.174 of the CrPC
focuses on ascertaining the apparent cause of death
in cases of unnatural or suspicious deaths. This
position has been well explained by this Court in
Podda Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 4
SCC 153). The proceeding under S.174 is limited in
scope and fundamentally distinct from investigations
aimed at prosecuting offences. Inquest proceedings
are conducted by the police or a Magistrate and
conclude with the filing of an inquest report before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), District Judge,
or Magistrate as the case may be. The relevant
observations are reproduced herein below: “11. A
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..21..
2026:KER:32829
perusal of this provision would clearly show that the
object of the proceedings under S.174 is merely to
ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is
the apparent cause of the death. The question
regarding the details as to how the deceased was
assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circumstances he was assaulted appears to us to be
foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings
under S.174. In these circumstances, therefore,
neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the
police to have mentioned these details in the inquest
report. (…)” (Emphasis supplied)
27. The investigation after registration of F.I.R. under
S.154 of the CrPC is an investigation into an offence.
In contrast, the investigation under S.174 of the
CrPC is an investigation or an “inquiry” into the
apparent cause of death.
28. The marginal note attached to S.174 of the CrPC
reads “Police to inquire and report on suicide, etc.”
This is self – explanatory as to the scope of the
provision. S.174 to 176 of the CrPC only contemplate
inquiry into the cause of death. Although the phrase
‘investigation’ is used in S.174 of the CrPC, yet it is
only an investigation in the nature of an inquiry.
Sometimes, during the inquest, the police record the
presence of witnesses who are also witnesses in the
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..22..
2026:KER:32829
case. These statements are not meant as substitutes
for statements under S.161 of the CrPC. The inquest
requirement under S.174 does use the word
investigation but if one considers the entire
phraseology of S.174 of the CrPC, one comes to the
conclusion that the word investigation in S.174 is not
an investigation to find out who are the offenders. It
is only to enable the police to come up with the
“apparent cause of death”. This phrase should give us
the clue as to the correct understanding of the role of
the police in inquest panchnama.”(Emphasis
supplied)
14. In Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb &
Others v. State Of U.P [2006 (2) SCC 450], a three Judge
Bench of the Supreme Court held that an investigation
under Section 174 Cr.PC is limited in scope and only
concerned with ascertaining the apparent cause of death.
The supreme Court observed that the investigation is
concerned with discovering whether in a given case the
death was accidental, suicidal, homicidal or caused by
animal and in what manner or by what weapon or
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..23..
2026:KER:32829
instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been
inflicted. The Supreme Court observed that there is
absolutely no requirement in law of mentioning the names
of the accused, the names of the eye witnesses or the gist
of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any
eye witness.
15. In Krishnan K. v. State of Kerala [2023 (5)
KHC 58], this Court has held that the FIR registered
under Section 174 Cr.PC cannot be construed as an FIR
within the meaning of the provisions of Section 154 Cr.PC
and the report under Section 174(2) Cr.PC is not a final
report and the same cannot be treated as positive or
negative. This Court further held that the report under
Section 174 Cr.PC does not decide the rights and liabilities
of the parties involved.
16. In Radhamma, the Division Bench considered a
case where an FIR registered under Section 154 Cr.PC was
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..24..
2026:KER:32829
filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and not before
the jurisdictional judicial Magistrate. While considering
the legality of the procedure adopted as stated above, the
Division Bench held that there cannot be a situation where
an FIR is registered under Section 174 of Cr.PC. The FIR
has to be filed in terms of Section 154 of Cr.PC to mark the
initiation of criminal proceedings. A copy of that FIR has
then to be filed before the jurisdictional judicial
Magistrate. The result of the investigation that follows has
necessarily to be contained in the final report filed before
the jurisdictional Magistrate as contemplated in Section
173 Cr.PC, the Division Bench observed.
17. Shri John S. Ralph, assisted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Shri Thareeq Anverk, submitted
that the Division Bench has declared the law that,
consequent to the enquiry under Sections 174 to 176
Cr.P.C., the final report shall be submitted before the
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..25..
2026:KER:32829
jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C.
18. There is no Final Report/Police Report under
Section 174(2) Cr.PC. The report to be submitted before
the Sub-divisional Magistrate cannot be treated as positive
or negative. It only contains the apparent cause of death.
19. The scope of investigation after recording the
statement under Section 154 Cr.PC is different. An FIR is
registered on receipt of an information of a cognizable
offence or otherwise by an officer-in-charge of a police
station. Then he is empowered under Section 156 Cr.PC to
investigate without the order of the Magistrate. He has to
send a report immediately to the Magistrate under
Section 157 Cr.PC (FIR) and proceed to investigate the
facts and circumstances of the case.
20. The report under Section 174 Cr.PC is forwarded
to the Executive Magistrate to facilitate him to hold an
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..26..
2026:KER:32829
independent inquest. The report prepared under Section
174 Cr.PC will also form part of the materials collected
during investigation after registration of FIR.
21. The conclusion of the above discussion is that
there is no requirement in law to register an FIR for
conducting an enquiry under Sections 174 to 176 Cr.PC to
find out the apparent cause of death. The phrase
‘investigation’ used in Section 174 Cr.PC is only an
investigation in the enquiry. The Police in the process of
enquiry/investigation under Section 174 Cr.PC is only
expected to submit a report in Form No.72. While
ascertaining the apparent cause of death in cases of
unnatural or suspicious deaths, if the commission of a
cognizable offence is revealed, or if he has reason to
suspect commission of an offence, the officer-in-charge of
a Police Station is statutorily obliged to register an FIR and
then to proceed with the investigation, which he is
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..27..
2026:KER:32829
empowered under Section 156 Cr.PC subject to the proviso
to Section 157 Cr.PC.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Shri John S. Ralph, submitted that in certain
cases where the police initially concluded that an
unnatural death was a suicide, subsequent investigation
revealed the commission of cognizable offences,
culminating in a final report implicating the accused. Shri
John S. Ralph submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
has no power to sift evidence in a report under Section 174
Cr.PC; however, if a concluding report is submitted before
the jurisdictional Magistrate, the aggrieved person has a
remedy to seek further investigation.
23. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
concern raised by Shri John S. Ralph has no foundation, as
the report under Section 174 Cr.PC only contains the
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..28..
2026:KER:32829
apparent cause of death, and there is no question of the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate sifting evidence.
24. As I have concluded, the purpose of an enquiry
under Section 174 Cr.PC is only to ascertain the apparent
cause of death, and the report of the enquiry by the Police
is forwarded to the Executive Magistrate to facilitate him
in holding an independent inquest. These reports in no
way determine the rights of the parties. The report of the
Police after conducting an enquiry under Section 174
Cr.P.C. can neither have the character of a positive or
negative report nor that of a closure report. This report of
inquest cannot in any way interfere with the power of the
Police to investigate. The inquest report prepared by the
Executive Magistrate will also in no way interfere with the
freedom of the Police to proceed with the investigation of a
cognizable offence. An officer-in-charge of a police station
shall, on receiving information regarding the commission
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..29..
2026:KER:32829
of a cognizable offence, register a case and proceed with
the investigation. The information under Section 154(1)
Cr.P.C. is unqualified; in other words, the reasonableness
or credibility of the information is not a condition
precedent for registration of an FIR. If any information
disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before the officer-in-
charge of a police station, he has no option but to register
a case and proceed in accordance with the Cr.PC.
25. It is profitable to extract the observations of the
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992
(Supp) 1 SCC 335].
“30.The legal mandate enshrined in Section 154(1) is that
every information relating to the commission of a
“cognizable offence” (as defined under Section 2(c)
of the Code) if given orally (in which case it is to be
reduced into writing) or in writing to “an officer
incharge of a police station” (within the meaning of
Section 2(o) of the Code) and signed by the
informant should be entered in a book to be kept by
such officer in such form as the State Government
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..30..
2026:KER:32829
may prescribe which form is commonly called as
“First Information Report” and which act of entering
the information in the said form is known as
registration of a crime or a case.
31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on
the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable
offence in compliance with the mandate of Section
154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the
information, laid by the informant is reliable and
genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case
on the ground that the information is not reliable or
credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of
a police station is statutorily obliged to register a
case and then to proceed with the investigation if he
has reason to suspect the commission of an offence
which he is empowered under Section 156 of the
Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section
157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed
discussion about the power of a police officer in the
field of investigation of a cognizable offence within
the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the
ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to
deal with those sections in extenso in the present
context.) In case, an officer in charge of a police
station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in
him and to register a case on the information of a
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..31..
2026:KER:32829
cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the
statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved
by such refusal can send the substance of the
information in writing and by post to the
Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied
that the information forwarded to him discloses a
cognizable offence, should either investigate the
case himself or direct an investigation to be made by
any police officer subordinate to him in the manner
provided by sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the
Code..
32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the
legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and
cautiously used the expression “information” without
qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of
the Code wherein the expressions, “reasonable
complaint” and “credible information” are used.
Evidently, the non-qualification of the word
“information” in Section 154(1) unlike in Section
41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason
that the police officer should not refuse to record an
information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on
the ground that he is not satisfied with the
reasonableness or credibility of the information. In
other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the
said information is not a condition precedent for
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..32..
2026:KER:32829
registration of a case. A comparison of the present
Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will
indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it
fit to employ only the word “information” without
qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed
by the Legislative Council of India read that ‘every
complaint or information’ preferred to an officer in
charge of a police station should be reduced into
writing which provision was subsequently modified
by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872)
which thereafter read that ‘every complaint’
preferred to an officer in charge of a police station
shall be reduced in writing. The word ‘complaint’
which occurred in previous two Codes of 1861 and
1872 was deleted and in that place the word
‘information’ was used in the Codes of 1882 and
1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155,
157 and 190(c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of
1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it
clear that the condition which is sine qua non for
recording a first information report is that there
must be an information and that information must
disclose a cognizable offence.
33.It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information
disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an
officer in charge of a police station satisfying the
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..33..
2026:KER:32829
requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said
police officer has no other option except to enter the
substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to
say, to register a case on the basis of such
information.”
26. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.
[(2014) 2 SCC 1], a five – Judge Bench of the Supreme
Court affirmed the requirement for the mandatory
registration of the FIR under Section 154 Cr.PC. In Lalita
Kumari, the Supreme Court held that once the
information provided discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, it is imperative for the Police to
register the FIR without conducting any preliminary
inquiry.
27. I am of the considered view that the concern
raised by Shri John S. Ralph has no foundation. The
moment a police officer receives information regarding the
commission of a cognizable offence or otherwise, the
criminal law is set in motion. In the course of an enquiry
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..34..
2026:KER:32829
under Section 174 Cr.P.C., if he has reason to suspect the
commission of a cognizable offence, he is statutorily
obliged to register a case and proceed with the
investigation. If an officer-in-charge of a police station
refuses to register an FIR, the Code and the Sanhita
provide the remedies to the aggrieved. Therefore, the
concern raised by Shri John S. Ralph has no basis.
28. As held by the Division Bench in Radhamma,
there cannot be a situation where an FIR is registered
under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The police officer concerned is
only required to submit a report in Form No.72 to the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate to facilitate him in conducting an
independent inquest, if necessary. If a cognizable offence
is revealed by way of information, whether oral, written, or
otherwise, an FIR has to be registered in terms of Section
154 Cr.P.C. (Section 174 of the BNSS) to mark the
initiation of criminal proceedings. The subsequent
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..35..
2026:KER:32829
investigation will then culminate in a report under Section
173 Cr.PC.
29. The scope of enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
(Section 194 of the BNSS) has been discussed above. We
have come across many cases in which the enquiry into the
apparent cause of death has extended over years. In some
cases, it appears that, even where a genuine suspicion
regarding the commission of an offence arises, the Police
refuse to register an FIR. Even when the officer-in-charge
of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of
an offence in the course of an enquiry under Sections 174
to 176 Cr.PC, the Police fail to register an FIR and proceed
with the investigation. They may come across
circumstances pointing to a reasonable suspicion of the
commission of a cognizable offence. Once such suspicion
arises, the Police, without prematurely concluding that the
death was not due to homicide, are duty-bound to register
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..36..
2026:KER:32829
an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and proceed with the
investigation.
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kumar has
considered a similar circumstance. In Amit Kumar, the
Supreme Court observed that even if the Police were of the
view that there was no element of truth in the allegations,
it could have come to that conclusion only after registering
an FIR and conducting an investigation pursuant thereto.
It is relevant to extract paragraph 40 of the judgment,
which reads thus:-
“40. It is altogether a different thing to say that there is no
element of truth in what has been alleged by the appellants
in their respective complaints. It could just be a figment of
their imagination. It could also be just a reflection of their
anger towards the management as two young boys lost
their lives. Even if the Police was of the view that there was
no element of truth in what had been alleged by the
appellants, it could have said so only after registering an
F.I.R. and conducting an investigation pursuant thereto. We
say so because this is the law. The Police could not have
taken a shortcut just because something happened in the
hostel of an eminent educational institution like IIT Delhi.
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..37..
2026:KER:32829
It seems that the Police very quickly jumped to the
conclusion that the two boys were in some sort of
depression as they were not doing well in their studies.
Such conclusion of the Police may as well be correct.
However, again, at the cost of repetition, we say that such a
conclusion could have been arrived at only after following
the due process of law, i.e., registration of an F.I.R. and
investigation. Nobody would have stopped the Police from
filing an appropriate closure report saying that no case is
made out. However, to close the entire matter after
undertaking an investigation under S.174 of the CrPC is
something which we do not approve of.” (Emphasis
supplied)
31. Based on the observations made above, this
Court come to the following conclusions:-
32. An enquiry under Section 174 Cr.PC (Section 194
BNSS) shall be confined to the ascertainment of apparent
cause of death and the report thereunder has to be
submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. As held in
Radhamma, there cannot be a situation where an FIR is
registered under Section 174 Cr.PC. If from an information
received or otherwise, an officer-in-charge of a police
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..38..
2026:KER:32829
station has reason to suspect commission of a cognizable
offence, he is duty-bound to register an FIR and proceed
with the investigation. As held in Amit Kumar, in the
case of unnatural or suspicious death, even if the Police
are of the view that there is no element of truth in the
allegations, a conclusion to that effect has to be arrived
only after registering the FIR and conducting an
investigation pursuant thereto.
33. Coming to the facts in the present cases:-
WP(C) No.1808 of 2025
The victim was found hanging at his rented residence
on 03.08.2025. The close of relatives of the deceased
believe that the death was suspicious. It was reported to
the Police for immediate action. The Police proceeded to
conduct an enquiry under Section 174 Cr.PC. The father of
the victim specifically alleges that the incident is the
aftermath of the deceased questioning his wife. One of the
neighbours revealed to the Police that she saw the in-laws
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..39..
2026:KER:32829
of the deceased entering the place of occurrence and
heard the wife of the deceased shouting that he would be
killed. Some of the witnesses deposed to the Police that
the relatives of the wife of the deceased voluntarily caused
hurt to him and it was after that he was found hanging.
The circumstances highlighted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner are sufficient to suspect the commission of
the offence. Dropping the proceedings after undertaking
an investigation under Section 174 Cr.PC is therefore
something which this Court does not approve of.
34. I am of the considered view that an investigation
is required in the matter after sending the report under
Section 157 Cr.P.C. (FIR) to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
The Writ Petition is therefore allowed directing respondent
No.3 to proceed in accordance with law.
WP(C) No 247/2026
35. The petitioner’s son Mukesh Kumar Thakur was
working in Kochi. He was working on a fishing boat at the
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..40..
2026:KER:32829
Thoppumpady Harbour. Mukesh left for work on the said
fishing boat on 10.10.2025. On 13.10.2025, his dead body
was found floating on the sea approximately 25 nautical
miles west of the shore of Kochi. The father of the
petitioner received reliable information that there was a
fight on board of the fishing boat between some persons
and his deceased son. The injuries on the body of the
deceased, as revealed from the inquest report, supports
the suspicion of the petitioner. It is alleged that the
petitioner’s elder son was called for the identification of
the dead body, and that the Police made him sign blank
papers, stating that it was necessary for the investigation .
The petitioner alleges that the blank papers signed by him
were misused by the Police to concede the cause of death
of the deceased. It is submitted that the petitioner, on
17.12.2025, submitted a petition alleging cognizable
offences. The petitioner contended that the post-mortem
report indicated extensive injuries on the face and head of
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..41..
2026:KER:32829
the deceased, bulging of eyes, protrusion of tongue and
damage to facial structures, while there were no
corresponding injuries on the other parts of the body. It is
submitted that the stomach was found to contain no water.
It is the case of the petitioner that the medical findings
strengthen the suspicion that deceased had suffered
violent assault prior to the death and that the body was
later thrown into the sea. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that this is a case in which the
petitioner gave an information regarding a cognizable
offence.
36. Having regard to the circumstances brought out,
this Court is of the view that the Police has to proceed with
the investigation after submitting a report under Section
157 Cr.PC to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Writ
Petition is therefore allowed directing respondent No.3 to
proceed in accordance with law.
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..42..
2026:KER:32829
Before parting with the judgment, this Court places
its appreciation to Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned
Amicus Curiae for his valuable contribution.
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
kkj
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..43..
2026:KER:32829
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1808 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED
04/08/2025 BEARING NO.901/2025 OF THE
KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INQUEST REPORT
DATED 04/08/2025 DRAWN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POST MORTEM REPORT
DATED 04/08/2025 BEARING PM NO.
1524/2025 ISSUED BY THE ASST. POLICE
SURGEON, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR
DATED 05/08/2025 WRITTEN BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-D A true copy of the Judgment in Manoj
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
reported as 2016(9) SCC 1
ANNEXURE-A A true copy of the Judgment of the
Karnataka High Court in Dinesh Kumar
Singhi and others Vs. State of
Karnataka and others reported as
MANU/KA/0526/2017
ANNEXURE-B A true copy of the Government Order
G.O(P) No.85/93/Home dated 28.06.1993
ANNEXURE-C A true copy of the FIR in Crime No.
958/2020 of Ariyancode Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram Rural
ANNEXURE-E A true copy of the Judgment of the
Division Bench of High Court of Delhi
in Abhay Nath Dubey Vs. State of Delhi
and others reported as
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..44..
2026:KER:32829
MANU/DE/0849/2002
ANNEXURE-F A true copy of the Judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in
Gaurav Vs. State of UP and others
reported as MANU/UP/2497/2022
ANNEXURE-G A true copy of the Judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
and Ladak at Jammu in Rahul Kumar and
others Vs. UT of J and K reported as
MANU/JK/0038/2023
ANNEXURE-H A true copy of the relevant Rules in
chapter V of Kerala Police Manual
ANNEXURE-I . A true copy of the KPF Form
72/inquest report
Annexure-J A true copy of the final report
submitted before the Sub Divisional
Magistrate Court, Fort Kochi by
Kadavanthra Police
Annexure-K A true copy of the Government Order no
GO (P) No 86/93/home dated 28.06.1993
WP(C) Nos.1808 of 2025 &
247 of 2026
..45..
2026:KER:32829
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 247 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT DATED 13/10/2025 IN CRIME NO. 26
OF 2025 OF THE FORT KOCHI COASTAL
POLICE STATION
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
19/11/2025 FILED UNDER RTI BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO, KOCHI
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTMORTEM REPORT
NUMBERED P.M. NO. 893/25 DATED
19/10/2025 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF
MEDICAL EDUCATION
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17/12/2025 ALONG WITH RECEIPT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT – STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION,
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17/12/2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT – ASSISTANT
INSPECTOR GENERAL, COASTAL POLICE,
ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 18/12/2025