Report of police officer on completion of investigation
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with report of police officer on completion of investigation. Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so,by whom ;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, weather with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, In such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation,
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order- for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report-
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements-recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it
convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed ; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).
Section 173, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 193 Report of police officer on completion of investigation Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-17.pdf 2012-12-13. Crl A 2009. CrPC 173(8) further investigation is a statutory police power even after a chargesheet; 'fresh' / 're-investigation' by another agency needs the court's leave and is exceptional. The magistrate considers both reports together. Map crpc 173 and successor bnss 193.
On this section: s.173(8) further investigation is a statutory police power even after a chargesheet; the magistrate considers both reports together. A 'fresh' / 're-investigation' by another agency is exceptional and needs the court's leave.
-
Rakesh vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate does not become functus officio (completely devoid of power) merely by accepting a police final report under Section 173 CrPC. The Magistrate retains the independent power to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint or protest petition filed by the first informant or complainant, even after accepting a negative final report, provided the Magistrate independently applies his mind to the facts and circumstances and follows the appropriate legal procedure under Sections 190, 200, and 202 CrPC. The mere acceptance of a final report does not foreclose or bar the exercise of this power.
On this section: Receipt of police report under Section 173 CrPC gives Magistrate three options: drop action, take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), or proceed under Section 190(1)(a)
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a charge-sheet is filed after completion of investigation by the investigating agency in the competent court, the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring the investigating agency's proper performance comes to an end. Thereafter, all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be dealt with exclusively by the competent trial court. The Supreme Court shall not continue to monitor the trial phase, as the Constitution envisages an independent and impartial tribunal (the trial court) for dispute resolution, and judicial monitoring of the trial would constitute an improper interference with the trial court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The remedy for any error committed by the trial court lies in appeal or judicial review, not in continued Supreme Court intervention.
On this section: Final report/charge-sheet filing procedures by investigating officer
-
Madhav Saran Agarwal vs Msx Mall Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 138/141 proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act against a corporate debtor are covered by the moratorium provision in Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as such proceedings relate to transactions evidencing debt of the corporate debtor and result in depletion of its assets through compensation orders, thereby directly impacting the object of the moratorium which is to preserve the corporate debtor's assets during the insolvency resolution process so it can continue as a going concern and be rehabilitated. However, the moratorium applies only to the corporate debtor and not to natural persons (Directors/officers) in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the corporate debtor, who remain liable to prosecution under Section 138/141 as the corporate debtor is a necessary party to such proceedings.
On this section: Cited in context of Section 32A to distinguish between police reports and private complaints
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: Report of police officer on completion of investigation - key provision for determining police officer status
-
Sondabhai Hanubhai Bharwad vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the same act constitutes an offence both under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and under the Indian Penal Code, specifically where minerals are dishonestly removed from government land without consent (theft under IPC), the two offences are distinct in their ingredients and ingredients are different. Therefore, Section 22 of the MMDR Act, which restricts cognizance of offences under the Act to complaints by authorized officers, does not bar prosecution under the IPC for the distinct offence of theft. The police can register FIR for theft, investigate, and submit report to Magistrate for cognizance under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC, while simultaneously the authorized officer can file complaint for MMDR Act violation requiring different procedure for Magistrate cognizance. Both prosecutions can proceed as the offences are distinct and the bar against double jeopardy applies only to identical offences.
On this section: Police report after investigation; key to Magistrate cognizance in IPC theft cases as distinguished from MMDR Act complaint requirement
-
Kalubhai Dulabhai Khachar vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where conduct constitutes an offence under both the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the MMDR Act do not impliedly or explicitly exclude prosecution under the IPC. Police can register FIR, investigate and submit charge sheets for theft of minerals under IPC Sections 378-379 based on discovery of unauthorized removal of minerals from government land. Magistrates can take cognizance of theft offences on police reports under Section 190(1)(d) CrPC without awaiting complaint from authorized MMDR officer. However, for offences constituting breach of mining lease or unauthorized mining specifically under MMDR Act Section 21, cognizance by Magistrate can only be taken upon complaint in writing by person authorized by Central or State Government as required by MMDR Act Section 22. These are distinct offences with different ingredients and prosecution for both does not violate Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy provided person is not punished twice for identical offence. The Public Trust Doctrine establishes that natural resources are national assets requiring protection through multiple enforcement mechanisms. Police duty under Sections 149-152 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences includes authority and responsibility to investigate illegal mining even without prior authorization from mining authorities.
On this section: Police reporting mechanism and Magistrate jurisdiction to take cognizance; established that cognizance under IPC can follow police report for theft even if MMDR violation requires authorized complaint
-
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated on allegations that fail to disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences charged, where the underlying dispute is fundamentally civil in nature (employment termination), and where procedural irregularities and discrepancies suggest deliberate misclassification of the matter to transform a civil dispute into criminal proceedings for purposes of coercion or settlement, constitute an abuse of legal process and travesty of justice warranting quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential ingredients of criminal offences must be strictly established: Section 323 requires voluntary act of causing actual hurt; Sections 504 and 509 require specific intentional insult with contextual details and intent to provoke or shock sense of decency; Section 506 requires threat with intent to cause alarm, not mere assertion of consequences of lawful termination. Mere allegations without substantiation of these ingredients do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Chargesheet filing - appellants sought quashing of chargesheet filed under this section
-
Ram Prakash Chaddha vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of considering discharge application under Section 227 Cr.PC, the court must confine its consideration to 'the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith' (prosecution materials only) and determine whether a prima facie case exists based on grave suspicion emerging from such materials. Mere suspicion, supposition, or conjecture not founded on materials on record cannot justify framing charges. In cases of criminal conspiracy, there must be at least an allegation of agreement between conspirators; absent such allegation or evidence of agreement in prosecution materials, charges of conspiracy cannot be framed merely on basis of suspicious circumstances. The court is not a mere post office of prosecution but must exercise independent judicial mind to protect accused from frivolous prosecution, especially at pre-trial stage.
On this section: Final report by police; chargesheet is filed under Section 173(2) Cr.PC; constitutes prosecution materials for discharge consideration
-
Honnaiah T. H vs The State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An informant/injured victim has the legal standing to file a criminal revision petition challenging an order passed during trial, provided the order is not merely interlocutory but substantially affects the rights of the parties or could result in gross miscarriage of justice. The test for determining whether an order is interlocutory is whether it is of a purely interim or temporary nature that does not decide or touch upon important rights or liabilities of parties. Any order that substantially affects the rights of parties, such as an order refusing to mark crucial evidence as an exhibit, is not interlocutory and is therefore subject to revision. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC can be exercised at the instance of a private complainant or informant where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence or committed a manifest illegality that could result in gross miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Governs the submission of charge-sheets by police after investigation.
-
Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohammad Maqbool Magrey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court must apply its judicial mind and sift the evidence placed before it by the prosecution for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case has been made out. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or rely solely on post-mortem reports to determine the nexus between alleged assault and death. The post-mortem report is not substantive evidence but merely a previous statement of the doctor; only the doctor's oral testimony in court constitutes substantive evidence. Whether the cause of death has any nexus with the alleged assault can only be determined after recording oral evidence of eye witnesses and the medical officer as an expert witness. The determination of whether a case falls under Section 302 IPC (murder) or Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) must be made only after evaluation of the entire oral evidence led by both prosecution and defence at the end of the trial, not at the charge-framing stage. If a prima facie case is made out based on the materials placed by the prosecution, even if those materials give rise to strong suspicion, the charge should be framed in accordance with the case put up by the prosecution, and the accused should be given the opportunity to defend against the higher charge at trial.
On this section: Police report - the charge sheet filed by police under this section forms the basis for charge-framing proceedings
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Final report by police; cognizance taken by magistrate on basis of final report
-
V. Sivankutty vs The State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliamentary privileges and immunities granted under Article 194 of the Constitution are functional in nature, designed to enable elected representatives to perform their legislative duties without hindrance. These privileges do not extend to criminal acts such as destruction of public property, and no elected representative can claim exemption from the application of criminal law. Acts of vandalism and destruction of public property committed within the precincts of the legislature are not protected by parliamentary privilege and can be prosecuted without prior sanction of the Speaker. The withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be evaluated not merely on the basis of good faith but also on whether it subserves the administration of justice and does not cause manifest injustice. In cases involving destruction of public property and breach of public trust by elected representatives, the court must scrutinize the gravity of the offence and its impact on public life before granting consent to withdrawal.
On this section: Section 321 governs withdrawal of prosecution by the Public Prosecutor with court consent. Section 197 requires sanction for prosecution of certain public servants. Section 397 provides revisional jurisdiction to High Court. The Court analyzed the proper scope of judicial review under these provisions
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Final report filed by investigating officer after completion of investigation
-
State of Haryana vs DHANI
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused exclusively lies on the prosecution, which must prove the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused. When the prosecution fails to produce eyewitness evidence, best evidence (such as CCTV footage), medical evidence, and forensic evidence despite their availability, and when the testimonies of witnesses are contradictory, hearsay, or hostile, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the accused must be acquitted and given the benefit of doubt, as wrongful conviction of an innocent person is far more serious than wrongful acquittal.
On this section: Final report by police after investigation. The investigating officer filed the final report under this section.
-
Vikrant Rana @ Shankar vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227, 239, and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court is required to evaluate the material presented by the investigating agency only to ascertain whether the facts emerging from the record, if taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence alleged. The trial court is not required to weigh the probative value of the material or to consider the probable defence of the accused. The standard of evaluation is limited to determining whether a prima facie case exists, and the adequacy and sufficiency of evidence is not to be considered at this stage. The veracity of evidence can only be evaluated during the trial.
On this section: Final report by police - the investigative report on which charge framing decision is based
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… While setting aside the order dated September 27, 2014, the Delhi High Court issued a direction to the learned Special Court to permit the respondent-CBI to file an application to bring on record the CDs. 6. Accordingly, an application was filed by the respondent-CBI for production of the CDs by invoking Section 173(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the CrPC'). On 13th October 2015, an order was passed by the learned Special Judge directing playing of the two CDs in the Court and comparing the same with unsealed CDs which were in Malkhana of the respondent-CBI. An application made by the accused opposing …
-
… Having recorded the statements of the Respondent-Victim (PW-4) and Rajjo Devi (PW-6) on 09.06.2014 and 11.06.2014 respectively, the Investigating Officer on completion of investigation filed the Final Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC 1973"). Subsequent to the cognizance having been taken and on account of all the accused claiming to be not guilty, case was moved for trial before the District and Sessions Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh for offences under section 326A read with 34 IPC 1860. - 6. …
-
… To put it differently, the CrPC, 1973 is a handbook introduced to maintain and uphold fair play in a criminal case, starting with the investigation and ending with the acquittal or a conviction leading to a sentence. SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 "173. Report of police officer.— xxx xxx xxx (4) After forwarding a report under this section, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall, before the commencement of, the inquiry or trial, furnish or cause to be furnished to the accused, …
Questions about Section 173
What have the courts held on Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak (13 Dec 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.173(8) further investigation is a statutory police power even after a chargesheet; the magistrate considers both reports together. A 'fresh' / 're-investigation' by another agency is exceptional and needs the court's leave. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 173, section 173 CRPC, section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak (13 Dec 2012).
What should I read with Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 158 (Report how submitted), section 161 (Examination of witnesses by police), section 170 (Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 193 (Report of police officer on completion of investigation), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called charge sheet, and cited as CRPC 173, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.