LENTIS LEGALIS
ALLAHABAD| 14.02.2026

The Allahabad High Court has allowed a criminal appeal and set aside multiple orders passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj, holding that a trial court cannot ignore a Final Report (closure report) filed after further investigation merely because cognizance had already been taken on an earlier charge sheet.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow this present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2024, 27.06.2024 and 10.05.2024 and all other consequential orders also passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District-Kannauj in S.C. No.1374/2023 (State Vs. Sonu @ Bhagwan Bhakt and others) arising out of Case Crime No.627/2023 U/s 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1)(d) SC/St Act, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj District-Kannauj. The Investigating Officer initially filed a charge sheet on 15.09.2023, on which cognizance was taken on 21.12.2023.

As the investigation was still under progress, supplementary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted by I.O. on 31.3.2024 by concluding that allegations against the appellants were found false. It can be said that a final report was submitted by I.O. subsequent to the order of taking cognizance upon the charge sheet on 21.12.2023

During further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the I.O. submitted a Final Report/Closure Report on 31.03.2024, concluding that the allegations were false. Despite this, the trial court proceeded to frame charges on 07.08.2025 without passing any order on the Final Report.

The central question before the High Court was:
What is the duty of a Magistrate when, after taking cognizance on a charge sheet, a subsequent Final Report (negative report) is filed following further investigation?

The High Court held that A supplementary report, including a Final Report, is an integral part of the primary police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Magistrate is duty-bound to consider every subsequent report filed during investigation, even after cognizance has been taken. Ignoring a Final Report and proceeding to frame charges amounts to a procedural illegality. Passing a fresh order on a Final Report does not amount to a review barred under Section 362 Cr.P.C., as cognizance does not finally dispose of the case.

The Court relied on landmark judgments including:

• Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) – holding that primary and supplementary reports must be read conjointly.
• Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) – recognising the necessity of further investigation even after cognizance.
• Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh – reiterating the Magistrate’s duty to independently assess conflicting police reports.
• Mariam Fasihuddin v. State (2024) – emphasising that courts must apply judicial mind to every valid supplementary report.

The impugned orders dated 21.08.2024, 27.06.2024 and 10.05.2024, including the order framing charges on 07.08.2025, were set aside. The trial court has been directed to first decide the Final Report after considering it along with the initial charge sheet. Charges may be framed only if a conjoint reading of both reports discloses a prima facie case.

See Here to read full Judgement

Allahabad | lentis legalis team

The Allahabad High Court has expressed serious concern over the increasing number of police encounters resulting in serious injuries to accused persons. The court observed that police firing, particularly shooting suspects in the legs “has become a common occurrence” and constitutes a misuse of  power that cannot be permitted.

These remarks were made while granting bail to an accused named Raju @ Rajkumar, who had sustained serious injuries in a police encounter and was seeking bail in a case registered under Sections 305(a), 331(4), and 317(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Non-Compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines

Upon examining the FIR and related records, the court found that although an FIR related to the police encounter was eventually registered, the mandatory safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) case were not followed.

Specifically, The injured accused’s statement was neither recorded before a magistrate nor by a medical officer. The investigation was initially assigned to a sub-inspector, whereas the Supreme Court mandates that encounters be investigated by an officer of a rank senior to the head of the police party involved or by an independent agency like the CBCID. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal stated that such omissions violate binding constitutional law under Article 141, rendering the police action legally flawed.

Court Summons Top State Officials

Taking cognizance of the repeated non-compliance, the High Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, and the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to appear before it via video conferencing.

Both senior officials acknowledged that despite repeated circulars issued in 2017 and 2024, many police officers were disregarding the Supreme Court’s directives. He assured the court that new guidelines would be issued and strict disciplinary action would be taken against the erring officers. Strong warning against ‘punitive’ encounters

The court strongly condemned the practice of police firing on accused persons under the guise of encounters, stating:

“The power to punish rests exclusively with the courts, not the police. India is a democratic state governed by the rule of law, and such conduct cannot be tolerated.”

The court also noted that in the cases before it, no police officer had sustained any injuries, raising serious doubts about the necessity and proportionality of the use of firearms.

Contempt proceedings for future violations

In a significant warning, the High Court stated that District Police Chiefs (SP/SSP/Commissionerate Police) would be liable for contempt of court, in addition to departmental action, if the Supreme Court guidelines are violated in encounter cases resulting in death or serious injury.

Session Judges have also been empowered to consider complaints regarding non-compliance and, where necessary, refer cases to the High Court for contempt proceedings.

Bail granted keeping in mind constitutional mandate

While granting bail to the applicant, the court took into consideration the Non-compliance with PUCL guidelines, the fact that the applicant’s name was not initially in the FIR, filing of the charge sheet, long period of incarceration since August 2025, and Overcrowding in prisons and pendency of criminal trials. The applicant was released on bail subject to strict conditions to ensure cooperation in the trial and non-interference with evidence.

Reaffirmation of human rights and the rule of law

Reiterating India’s constitutional and international obligations under Article 21, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN norms on law enforcement, the court emphasized that human dignity cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expediency or publicity. This decision confirms that the PUCL guidelines are the law of the land and must be strictly followed in every case of a police encounter resulting in death or serious injury.

Ranchi | January 10, 2026
Lentis Legalis

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that viewing a wife’s private photos without her consent and showing them to family members, causing humiliation, constitutes mental cruelty under matrimonial law and is a valid ground for divorce.

A division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai allowed the wife’s appeal, overturning the Family Court’s order that had previously refused to grant a decree of divorce. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence correctly and overlooked clear indications of mental cruelty.

The couple was married on March 13, 2020. The wife left her matrimonial home less than two months later, on May 10, 2020, and subsequently approached the Family Court seeking a divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty.

The wife alleged that while she was asleep, her husband accessed her mobile phone and retrieved private and objectionable photos saved in her Google Drive without her knowledge or consent. She claimed that he transferred these photos to his device and subsequently used them to threaten and blackmail her.

She further alleged that the husband showed these private photos to his parents and other family members, subjecting her to continuous humiliation and mental harassment. According to her, she was also physically assaulted, forced into sexual relations under threat of having the photos uploaded on social media, and deprived of her stridhan (dowry). She also claimed that she was forced to sign a declaration stating that she was voluntarily leaving her matrimonial home and would not claim any rights in the future. Finally, she alleged that she was thrown out of the house along with her father and threatened with dire consequences.

The husband denied all allegations of cruelty. He argued that the wife had a relationship with another man before the marriage and had concealed this fact. She further claimed that she continued to communicate with the man even after her marriage and was unwilling to end the relationship. According to her, despite knowing about his wife’s past relationship, the husband was willing to continue the marital relationship.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition, stating that the wife had failed to prove cruelty, even on a balance of probabilities. However, the High Court reiterated that under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, it had the power to re-examine both the facts and the law. After a detailed examination of the oral evidence and the established principles relating to cruelty, the High Court held that while the allegations of physical assault were not proven by conclusive evidence, mental cruelty had been clearly established.

The bench observed that accessing a spouse’s private photographs without permission and showing them to family members constitutes humiliation, a violation of privacy, and character assassination, which strikes at the very root of a person’s dignity.

The court stated, “Marriage is based on trust and respect. Once that foundation is destroyed, it cannot be rebuilt, as trust is the bedrock of the marital relationship.”

The High Court held that exposing a spouse’s private matters to the public and humiliating them destroys the foundation of trust in the marriage, and it is unreasonable to expect them to continue living together under such circumstances.

See here to read Judgement