Strict compliance with procedural requirements in e-filing and handling of final reports is mandated to avoid delays.

ORDER

The petitioner, one of the accused in Crime No.156 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent Police, has filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the First Information Report registered against him.

2.When the matter came up for hearing on 01.08.2025, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation in Crime No.156 of 2020 had already been completed and that the final report had been filed through e-filing before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, on 27.11.2024. However, it was yet to be taken on file.

3.Since it was represented that the final report had already been filed, this Court was not inclined to entertain the petition for quashing the FIR without ascertaining the materials relied upon by the Investigating Agency in the final report. It is for the petitioner to challenge the final report, if so advised.

4.At the same time, it was noticed that though the final report had been filed in November 2024, it had not been taken on file for over eight months. Therefore, by order dated 01.08.2025, this Court called for a report from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, explaining the delay.

5.Pursuant to the said direction, the learned Judicial Magistrate has submitted a report stating that the final report was filed through e-filing on 27.11.2024. However, Athachi and Form 91 were not uploaded, as a result of which the final report was returned on 06.12.2024. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer re-submitted the final report physically on 15.04.2025. Even in this resubmission, the Athachi was not enclosed, which was communicated to the Investigating Officer vide letter dated 05.06.2025. After rectifying the defects, the Investigating Officer re-submitted the final report on 30.07.2025 and it was finally taken on file on 01.08.2025 in C.C.No.107 of 2025.

6.On perusal of the report, it appears that the final report was returned on account of non-filing of Athachi and Form 91, instead of being retained on file and the defect communicated separately. Rule 25(6) of the Criminal Rules of Practice specifically prohibits the return of final reports and directs that a memorandum should be issued to the Investigating Officer to rectify the defect, with escalation to superior police officers if not complied within three months. The procedure adopted in the present case is therefore contrary to the said Rule.

7.The Madras High Court, by Notification in ROC.No. 75085A/2023/Comp3 dated 24.08.2023, has made e-filing of charge sheets mandatory throughout Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) prescribes that defects should be communicated electronically and that rectification must also be carried out through the e-filing portal. Acceptance of physical resubmission, as in the present case, is inconsistent with the said procedure and defeats the very object of digitisation.

8.This Court has, therefore, sought for the particulars with regard to the e-filed final reports and its status, for the Districts coming under the jurisdiction of this Bench. The particulars produced before this Court is alarming with several mismatch, not taken on file, etc., During the hearing, certain practical difficulties in the e-filing process were also brought to the notice of this Court, particularly relating to defect rectification and re-uploading.

9.The filing of error-free final reports is a mandatory responsibility of Investigating Officers. Several circulars issued by the Police Department emphasize the necessity of procedural compliance before filing the final report. There is no second thought that these instructions must be followed strictly to avoid unnecessary te