1. 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.

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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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:-

                  “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:-

                  “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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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.

                  Before parting with the judgment, this Court places its appreciation to Sri.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned Amicus Curiae for his valuable contribution.