Executive Magistrate Must Inform Relatives If No Cognizable Offence Is Revealed During Inquiry U/s. 174 CrPC - Kerala HC In Unnatural Death Case

A Kerala High Court Bench of Justice K Babu has observed that, in cases of unnatural death registered under Section 174 of the CrPC culminating in the non-registration of FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC on the ground that no cognizable offence is revealed, the Executive Magistrate must inform the same to the relatives of the deceased.

In that context, it was said that, "This Court deems it fit that a direction be given to the Executive Magistrate concerned to inform the relatives of the deceased of the results of inquiry under Section 174 of the Code in cases where the matter culminates in the non-registration of the FIR under Section 154 of the Code on the ground that no cognizable offence has been revealed."

In light of the same, the Court issued the following directions:

(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.

Advocate Suman Chakravarthy, among others, appeared for the petitioner. Public Prosecutor MK Pushpalatha appeared for the State. Counsel John S Ralph and Counsel Renjith B Marar were appointed as amici curiae by the Court.

In this case, the petitioner was seeking a comprehensive investigation into the death of his daughter, who was found hanging in her bedroom with her three-year-old son nearby.

The police initially registered the case under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and ongoing proceedings were underway. However, before her death, the deceased had expressed concerns about harassment from her husband's family related to dowry and other marital issues. Her death occurred within seven years of marriage, but the police did not include any cognizable offence in their investigation.

The petitioner complained to the District Superintendent of Police, urging a thorough investigation. He received reliable information suggesting that the police were trying to close the case as an unnatural death. 

The High Court perused the relevant provisions of the law and a catena of judgments, and subsequently reached the following conclusions.

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

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

(4) The phrase “investigation” used in Section 174 of the Code 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) of the Code 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) of the Code 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 of the Code 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 of the Code is an investigation into the commission of a cognizable offence which ends in the submission of the report under Section 173(2) of the Code. This investigation cannot be equated with the investigation under Section 174 of the Code.

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

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

Noting that the deceased had died by suicide within seven years of marriage, and that her father had pleased that he had given gold ornaments as dowry and the husband had demanded more, and that the examination of witnesses revealed harassment of the deceased on account of dowry, the Court observed that "This is very much enough to attract prima facie the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-B or 306 of IPC to register the FIR." 

Allowing the petition, the Court directed the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.

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

Click here to read/download my Judgment