Does a magistrate’s inquest close a police inquiry into an unnatural death? Not so, says the Karnataka High Court: an inquest report only aids probe, and the police must still file a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Bengaluru: Rejecting the State’s stand that proceedings end once the Executive Magistrate’s inquest report is submitted, the Karnataka High Court has issued a mandamus to a Hassan district police sub-inspector to complete the investigation into an unnatural death reported in December 2023 and file a final report before the Magistrate [Subbaiah v. State of Karnataka and Others].
Allowing the writ petition, Justice Suraj Govindaraj also asked the Director General of Police to circulate the Madras High Court’s ruling in Manohari v. District Superintendent of Police, in English and Kannada, to all investigating officers, and to file a compliance report within four weeks.
One piece of material, not the end of the inquiry
The State’s submission did not find favour with the Court, which said:
“the Inquest Report submitted by the Executive Magistrate is only one of the materials collected during the course of investigation. It neither concludes the investigation nor constitutes the final report contemplated under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
It added that the Investigating Officer must file an appropriate final report before the Judicial Magistrate seized of UDR No. 22/2023, taking into account the inquest report and the other material collected.
Manohari and what it lays down
The petitioner relied on Manohari, a decision of Justice Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court, which Justice Govindaraj described as an “exhaustive and well-reasoned judgment” on the nature, scope and object of Section 174 proceedings. As extracted in the order, it holds that an inquest only seeks to establish whether a person died an unnatural death and the apparent cause, and need not name the assailants or the manner of assault.
The Executive Magistrate’s report goes to the police and becomes part of the material gathered in the investigation. The police must investigate independently and file a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, positive or closure, only before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If a closure report is filed, the victim must be served notice so that a protest petition can be filed.
The Court held that the principles in Manohari squarely govern the case, and that they carry over to the BNSS:
“On and from the date of the Code of Criminal Procedure being repealed by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) the said findings would be equally applicable to Section 194 of the BNSS, 2023.”
A death in December 2023
A man named Santhosh died on 9 December 2023. A complaint alleged that his death was caused by failure to administer proper and necessary medical treatment, and the Yesalur police registered Unnatural Death Report (UDR) No. 22/2023 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Executive Magistrate held an inquest and submitted a report on 10 December 2023, but no final report was ever filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Court made no finding on the allegation about the cause of death, which remains a complaint allegation.
The petitioner, Subbaiah, came to the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, asking for a direction to the police to file a final report or charge sheet so that he could file a protest petition before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura. His argument was that the inquest is only one part of the investigative process and that the police must file a final report once investigation is complete. The State’s counsel contended that, under Section 174 CrPC or its successor, Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), proceedings culminate on submission of the inquest report to the Executive Magistrate and no further report is needed.
What the petition secured
The Court issued a mandamus to respondent No. 3, the Police Sub-Inspector of Yesalur Police Station, to complete the investigation and file the final report before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sakleshpura. The Director General of Police is to forward the Manohari order, in English and translated into Kannada, along with a copy of this order, to all Investigating Officers and report compliance within four weeks. The petition was disposed of, but it was listed again on 25 August 2026 for reporting compliance. The investigation is yet to conclude, and the Court expressed no view on the merits of the allegations about the death.
Why the order matters
If a matter stops at the inquest, the family of a person who dies in unnatural circumstances can be left with no final report at all. The order spells out that the Magistrate’s inquest is a fact-finding step, that the police investigation and a Section 173(2) final report must follow, and that the victim’s side can file a protest petition once a report is before the Magistrate.
Case Title: Subbaiah v. State of Karnataka and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 21921 of 2026 (GM-POLICE)
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: July 28, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Sampath Kumar A V, Advocate, for the petitioner; Ms. Saritha Kulkarni, Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents