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

LENTIS LEGALIS
Prayagraj | 16 February 2026

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings, including charges under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, in a case alleging repeated sexual assault and blackmail, holding that the material on record did not disclose a prima facie case warranting trial.

Justice Avnish Saxena allowed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) filed by the accused persons, setting aside the charge-sheet dated 12.02.2025, the cognizance order dated 28.02.2025, and all consequential proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 883 of 2024, Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly.

The FIR, lodged on 01.12.2024 by the complainant, a married woman, alleged that she was repeatedly raped by the first accused between August 2022 and November 2023 on the pretext of guidance for the Provincial Civil Services examination. It was further alleged that obscene videos were recorded and later used for blackmail, with the second accused allegedly circulating the videos to the complainant’s family members.

Applicants submit that the FIR is grossly delayed. The informant is a married lady having two children, who has some oblique motive to fulfil. The record shows that the victim herself has sent friend request to the sister of accused through facebook, came closer to her and thereafter made distance and came closer to accused applicant.

After examining the FIR, statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS, and material collected during investigation, the Court noted multiple inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution story. The Court observed that:

• The complainant was a married, educated woman with children and allegedly maintained prolonged physical relations over several years without reporting the matter.
• The alleged blackmail was based on videos which the complainant admitted she had never seen.
• There was no recoverable electronic evidence to substantiate claims of circulation of obscene material.
• Statements of the complainant’s husband and father did not conclusively support the allegation of transmission of videos.
• WhatsApp chats placed on record indicated intimate communication beyond mere academic guidance.

Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that prolonged and repeated physical relations, in the absence of compelling evidence of coercion or threat, cannot be presumed to be non-consensual.

The Court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, all proceedings against both accused persons were quashed.

read judgement below

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.