In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that trial courts cannot ignore a subsequent police “final report” merely because cognizance was already taken on an earlier charge sheet. Justice Anil Kumar-X allowed a criminal appeal filed by Sonu and five others, setting aside orders through which charges had been framed against them in an SC/ST Act case.
The Court held that every supplementary report filed during investigation must be considered independently and jointly with earlier reports before proceeding further.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from proceedings pending before a Special Judge under the SC/ST Act in Kannauj district. An FIR was lodged in 2023 against Sonu @ Bhagwan Bhakt and others under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on 15 September 2023. The trial court took cognizance of the offences in December 2023. However, during further investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a supplementary report on 31 March 2024 stating that the allegations against the accused were found false. In effect, this was a closure or “final report.”
Despite this development, the trial court proceeded to frame charges in August 2025 without passing any order on the final report.
Challenging this, the accused approached the High Court under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that once the Investigating Officer submitted a final report after further investigation, it was mandatory for the trial court to consider and decide upon that report before framing charges.
“The court could not have ignored the subsequent report,” the defence submitted, pointing out that both reports formed part of the same investigation.
The State counsel fairly conceded the factual position and did not dispute that the final report had not been considered before charges were framed.
Court’s Observation
Justice Anil Kumar-X framed the central question: what is the duty of a Magistrate when a final report is filed after cognizance has already been taken on a charge sheet?
The Court explained that under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police can conduct further investigation even after filing a charge sheet. Any supplementary report submitted thereafter becomes part of the original report.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, Ram Lal Narang v. State of Delhi, and Dharmatma Singh v. Harminder Singh, the bench observed that both the primary and supplementary reports must be read together.
“The Magistrate is duty-bound to apply his judicial mind to all reports submitted during investigation,” the Court noted.
It further clarified that considering a later report and arriving at a different conclusion does not amount to reviewing the earlier order. Section 362 CrPC, which bars review of final orders, applies only when a case has been finally disposed of. Taking cognizance is not the end of proceedings.
If a final report states that no offence is made out, the Magistrate must pass a reasoned order-either accepting it, rejecting it, or directing further investigation.
Ignoring such a report, the Court said, amounts to “procedural illegality.”
The Decision
Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 10 May 2024, 27 June 2024, and 21 August 2024, along with the order framing charges dated 7 August 2025.
The trial court has now been directed to first consider the final report and then pass an order after jointly examining both the charge sheet and the closure report.
The High Court made it clear: only if a combined reading of both reports shows a prima facie case against the accused should charges be framed.
The Registrar (Compliance) was also directed to circulate the judgment to all district courts.
The matter thus returns to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Case Title: Sonu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 10405 of 2024
Decision Date: 13 February 2026
