Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sonu And 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

The High Court held that a Magistrate is duty-bound to consider every police report, including supplementary reports.

Allahabad High Court·16 February 2026

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

16 February 2026

Judges

Justice Anil Kumar

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 173(2) & 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 362, CrPC Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Facts of the Case

The police initially filed a charge sheet on 15 September 2023 under IPC sections and the SC/ST Act.
The Magistrate took cognizance of offences on 21 December 2023.
After further investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a supplementary report (Final Report) on 31 March 2024, stating allegations were false.
Despite this exonerating report, the trial court framed charges on 7 August 2025 without considering the Final Report.
The appellants challenged the order, arguing that the Magistrate was duty-bound to consider the supplementary report.
The State counsel conceded that the Final Report ought to have been considered.

Whether a Magistrate is legally bound to consider and pass an order on a Final Report filed under Section 173(8) CrPC even after taking cognizance on an earlier charge sheet?
Whether ignoring a supplementary report and proceeding to frame charges amounts to procedural illegality?
Whether recording a contrary opinion based on a supplementary report amounts to review barred under Section 362 CrPC?

The High Court held that a Magistrate is duty-bound to consider every police report, including supplementary reports.
Observed that failure to consider the Final Report amounts to procedural illegality.
Clarified that taking cognizance on a primary report does not render the Magistrate functus officio.
Held that recording a contrary opinion after considering a supplementary report does not amount to review or recall under Section 362 CrPC.
Emphasized that the Magistrate’s duty is continuous until a final logical conclusion of investigation.
Directed that both the initial charge sheet and the supplementary report must be read conjointly.
Set aside the order issuing process and framing charges.
Directed the trial court to first consider both reports and then decide whether a prima facie case exists.

Magistrate must independently apply judicial mind to every supplementary report.
Ignoring a Final Report is procedural illegality.
Contrary opinion based on supplementary report is not barred review under Section 362 CrPC.
Orders issuing process and framing charges were set aside.

Reinforces judicial accountability in criminal procedure.
Clarifies confusion regarding functus officio doctrine and Section 362 CrPC.
Strengthens procedural safeguards for accused persons.
Aligns with Supreme Court precedents that supplementary reports are integral to primary reports.
Ensures that courts assess the cumulative effect of all investigation materials before framing charges.
Prevents mechanical continuation of prosecution without considering updated investigative findings.