[Unnatural Death] Executive Magistrate Must Inform Relatives If No Cognizable Offence Revealed Upon Inquiry U/S 174 CrPC: Kerala High Court

In an important judgment, the Kerala High Court has held that in cases under Section 174 of CrPC culminating in the non-registration of FIR under Section 154 due to the non-disclosure of a cognizable offence, the Executive Magistrate must inform the relatives of the deceased about this decision.

Justice K. Babu added that if the Executive Magistrate receives information about the commission of a cognizable offence during the inquiry, they must promptly inform the Judicial Magistrate, who will then take appropriate legal action.

"(i) In cases registered under Section 174 of the Code culminating in the non-registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code on the ground that no cognizable offence is revealed, the Executive Magistrate shall inform the same to the relatives of the deceased.

(ii) During inquiry under Sections 174 to 176 of the Code, in cases where the matter culminates in non-registration of the FIR under Section 154 of the Code, if the Executive Magistrate receives information of the commission of a cognizable offence, he shall immediately inform the same to the Judicial Magistrate concerned as provided in Section 190(c) of the Code.

(iii) The Judicial Magistrate concerned shall, upon receipt of the information, proceed in accordance with law."

The directions were issued in a case challenging the current procedure followed by the Police in cases where inquiry is conducted under Section 174. 

The question arose in a petition seeking a thorough investigation into the death of petitioner's daughter, alleging harassment over dowry from the husband and his family. The petitioner alleged that he received credible information indicating that the police were attempting to close the case.

Advocates Suman Chakravarthy, K.R. Rija and Amjath A.R for the petitioner submitted that in cases of suicide, the practice in Kerala is to register an FIR under Section 174, and there is no need for a fresh FIR under Section 154 if a cognizable offence is discovered during inquiry. If a cognizable offence is discovered during the inquiry, the existing FIR is transferred to the Judicial Magistrate with necessary penal provisions incorporated.

Public Prosecutor M.K Pushpalatha added that if information regarding a cognizable offence is obtained during the inquiry, the police proceed to conduct a separate investigation under Section 157, and the initial FIR registered under Section 174 is transformed into an FIR under Section 154 with the final report being submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 

Considering the significance of the issue, Advocates John S. Ralph and Renjith B. Marar were appointed as amici curiae by the court.

Advocate Ralph contended that in cases of suicide, the police cannot register an FIR unless a cognizable offence such as abetment of suicide or dowry death is reported. The police inquire into the matter and submit a report to the respective magistrate under Section 157, who can accept, reject, or direct further investigation. But when a report of inquiry report is submitted before an Executive Magistrate under Section 174, the only course open to the Magistrate is to accept it.

On the other hand, Advocate Marar submitted that the procedure of registering an FIR under Section 174 in cases of unnatural death is not supported by the statute and judicial precedents and disagreed with the law laid down in Manohari v. District Superintendent of Police. He added that in situations where a cognizable offence is discovered later under Section 174, the police officer is duty-bound to register an FIR under Section 154, while the Executive Magistrate may inform the jurisdictional magistrate of the same. 

The amici curiae further submitted that the current provisions of CrPC do not provide for notice or a right to protest for the complainant or relatives of the deceased when a closure report is submitted, highlighting the need for guidelines to address this gap.

The Court initially examined the statutory scheme and scope of Sections 174 and 176 respectively.

Justice Babu found that the purpose of an inquiry or investigation under Section 174 is to determine if a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death, without delving into the specific details of any potential offence. On the other hand, the scope of investigation under Section 154 is broad, encompassing all aspects and circumstances of the case upon receiving information about the commission of a cognizable offence.

The Single Judge then differentiated between 'investigation' after registration of FIR under Section 154 and 'investigation' in the inquiry under Section 174:

"The investigation after registration of FIR under Section 154 of the Code is an investigation into an offence. In contrast, the investigation under Section 174 of the Code is an  investigation on an “inquiry” into the apparent cause of death." 

The High Court also highlighted that the report of the inquest or investigation conducted under Section 174 is a factual inquiry report and does not impede the Police's authority to continue with their investigation.

Justice Babu then explored Manohari v. District Superintendent of Police and concluded that while the Madras High Court may have encountered cases where the police filed final reports under Section 173(2) before the Executive Magistrates, in Kerala, the police usually submit such reports before the appropriate Judicial Magistrate, as mandated by Section 173(2), and in the case of a closure report, the court serves notice to the victim before accepting the report. 

Regarding the contention that the conclusions of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code are not revealed to the aggrieved persons, the Court observed:

"It is trite that the victim cannot be treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal proceedings. It must be fair, transparent and judicious, as it is the minimum requirement of the rule of law. The victim has the right to be informed of the conclusions of the inquiry." 

Conclusions: 

(1) The provisions of Sections 174 to 176  form a complete Code in themselves.

(2) Section 174 contemplates an inquiry, which is limited as the purpose of the inquiry is to find out the apparent cause of death.

(3) The FIR registered under Section 174 cannot be construed as an FIR within the meaning of the provisions of Section 154. The purpose of registration of the FIR under Section 174 is over with the preparation of the report containing the apparent cause of death as provided in Section 174(2).

(4) The phrase “investigation” used in Section 174 is only an “investigation in the inquiry”. This investigation's scope is limited to finding out the apparent cause of death.

(5) The report under Section 174(2) is not a 'final report' under the Code. Such a report is not treated as “positive or negative”.

(6) The report of inquest under Section 174(2) and the inquest report prepared by the Executive Magistrate shall not in anyway interfere with the power and freedom of the Police to investigate the commission of a cognizable offence.

(7) The report under Section 174 does not decide the rights and liabilities of the parties involved.

(8) The investigation after registration of the FIR within the meaning of the provisions of Section 154 is an investigation into the commission of a cognizable offence which ends in the submission of the report under Section 173(2). This investigation cannot be equated with the investigation under Section 174.

(9) The investigation after registration of FIR under Section 154 may result in either of the circumstances described in Section 169 or 170 by way of filing a report under Section 173(2) before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

(10) Registration of an FIR within the meaning of the provisions of Section 154 after the registration of the FIR under Section 174 is legal and sustainable as the latter cannot be construed as an FIR in the eye of law. 

The Court also considered Advocate Marar's suggestion of providing training for Executive Magistrates to enhance their understanding and sensitivity in cases under Sections 174 to 176. 

The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala for necessary action.

Regarding the facts of the case, the Court found that all the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B or 306 IPC had been fulfilled and thus the respondents were directed to proceed as per law. The investigation was entrusted to a special team in the Crime Branch department. As such, the petition was allowed.

Case Title: K. Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 326

Click Here To Read/Download The Order