Ratios:
a. Time is the essence of criminal investigation by the police as well as for enquiry by the criminal courts/Judicial Magistrates at the initial stage.
b. It is the bounden duty of the Judicial Magistrates, to consider the final report filed by the police immediately and without unnecessary delay.

Headnote:(A)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.173, 190-Constitution of India-Art.21-Right to life-Speedy trial-Speedy investigation-Final report-Cognizance-Delay-Magistrates-Duty-Petitioner had lodged a report with the respondent in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence-Though the respondent filed final report, the Magistrate kept over it for 13 months without taking cognizance-State submitted that such inaction on the part of the Magistrates are prevalent throughout the State-Held, speedy investigation, speedy cognizance and trial is essential for the better criminal administration system-Delay in taking cognizance would affect not only the complainant but also the accused-Series of guidelines issued for being followed by the Magistrates in the matter of taking cognizance of the police report.
        (B)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.173, 190-Constitution of India-Art.21-Right to life-Speedy trial-Speedy investigation-Final report-Cognizance-Delay-Magistrates-Duty- Time is the essence of criminal investigation by the police as well as for enquiry by the criminal courts/Judicial Magistrates at the initial stage.
        Time is the essence of criminal investigation by the police as well as for enquiry by the criminal courts/Judicial Magistrates at the initial stage and in both courses, the exercise must be carried out without any unnecessary delay, else, great prejudice would result to the complainant on the one hand and the person accused of on the other hand. Para 5B
        (C)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.173, 190-Speedy trial-Speedy investigation-Final report-Cognizance-Delay-Magistrates-Duty- It is the bounden duty of the Judicial Magistrates, to consider the final report filed by the police immediately and without unnecessary delay.
        Since Judicial Magistrate courts are the first point of entry for such cases and having regard to the multifarious functions they have to discharge, staff is provided to assist the Magistrates in such functioning particularly to verify the final reports filed. It is the bounden duty of the Judicial Magistrates, in view of the seriousness of the job involved in taking the final reports on file, to immediately react by routinely getting particulars regarding receipt of such reports by the Head Clerk for verification. Para 6
        (D)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974)-Sec.173, 190-Final report-Cognizance-Delay-Magistrates-Duty-Series of directions issued.
        ……. This Court deems it absolutely necessary to issue the following directions to the Judicial Magistrate and Station House Police Officers/Investigating Officers functioning throughout the State of Tamil Nadu,
        A) The Head Clerks of the Judicial Magistrate Courts should bring to the notice of the Magistrates concerned, as part of the routine daily work, about the final reports/private complaints placed/filed on the particular day and in parallel, the Magistrates should make daily check-up with the Head Clerks.
        B) The Magistrates, after examining the final reports, in cases triable by them, should take necessary steps either to take cognizance or reject the same within a period of THREE DAYS from the date of placement of the Report.
        C) A final report, whereby prima facie materials are made available to constitute the offence/s alleged, shall not be returned on flimsy grounds and for immaterial defects when there is scope to cure those trivial defects in the course of enquiry.
        D) The Investigating Officers are directed to submit reports on weekly basis about the final reports laid by them before court so that the Magistrate concerned could verify and cross-check about the status of such reports so as to take further action, if any.
        E) The Superintendents of Police of the Districts and the Chief Judicial Magistrates concerned should, every month, verify at both ends regarding the delay in filing the final report by the Investigating Officer and the delay in acceptance of the same by the Magistrate and, if unusual or inordinate latency is noticed, the matter should be immediately reported to the District Judge concerned for taking appropriate action.
        Para 6

O r d e r:-The petitioner is the defacto-complainant in Crime No.3 of 2007 on the file of the respondent ie., Inspector of Police, DCB, Ooty. In the petition filed, by stating that though investigation was taken up on the complaint given by the petitioner on 17.5.2007, final report is not filed so far, it is pleaded that a suitable direction may be issued to conclude the investigation at the earliest and file final report.

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation of the case has been completed as early as on 7.10.2008 itself and that though final report was promptly laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, it has not been taken on file and, to substantiate such fact, he has produced a copy of the final report.

3. In view of the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor, is directed to receive the final report submitted by the respondent police and pass orders one way or the other within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4. With regard to an usual practice prevalent at the Judicial Magistrate Courts in the State in dealing with the final reports filed by the police, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has graphed out the scenario by stating that, in numerous instances where final reports are filed, learned Magistrates do not instantly react to the same by resorting to the procedure and practice involved and, in many cases, final reports enclosed with the materials relied on by the Investigating Officer on being presented before the Head Clerk of the Court, who is supposed to make verification, submission of the same before the Magistrate is delayed for extraneous reasons after casually entering the presentment of the final reports in a register called "Not Taken on File Cases Register", and the Magistrates also do not take pains to verify the cases entered in such Register, with the result, umpteen number of final reports received by the courts of Judicial Magistrates are kept pending without any rhyme or reason and, after long efflux of time, those final reports would be returned back by raising certain queries and for compliance on negligible aspects. In view of such strange practice adopted by almost all the Judicial Magistrates in the State, the resultant position is, in many cases, there is inordinate delay in commencing the proceedings while in other cases, prosecution could not be launched on account of various factors like lapse of time, non availability/demise of the parties etc. By referring to Rule-87 of the Criminal Rules of practice which is to the following effect:

"87. (107) (i) Committing Magistrate to give preference to preliminary enquiries:--Committing Magistrates should give preference to preliminary enquiries over other work and should hold such enquiries from day to day in so far as this is practicable.

(ii) In every case in which the time taken between the date of receipt of the charge-sheet and the date of the committal order exceeds six weeks the Committal Magistrate should furnish an explanation for the delay which should be attached to the copy of the committal order sent to the District Magistrate."

It is submitted that, since there is no specific provision available in the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulating the time factor with regard to taking the final report on file in all other cases triable by the courts of Judicial Magistrate, this Court may, considering the aspect adverted to above, issue specific direction to the Judicial Magistrates in the State by fixing an outer limit in that regard so as to avoid unnecessary delay in taking the final reports on file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, underpinning the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, states that such is the praxis not only in deciding the final reports laid by the police but also the private complaints preferred by the litigant individuals.

5. As a clear illustration to the commented

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRASR. Regupathi, J.,Christoper v. Superintendent of Police, Nilgris & Ors.,M.P.No.1 of 2009 in Crl.O.P.No.16253 of 2007 dtd. 8.10.2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R. Regupathi, J.,
Christoper v. Superintendent of Police, Nilgris & Ors.,
M.P.No.1 of 2009 in Crl.O.P.No.16253 of 2007 dtd. 8.10.2009