Case Closed But Closure Report Not Filed: Madras High Court Suspends DySP Citing 'Clear Disregard For Rule Of Law'

Justice P Velmurugan noted that it was not an isolated case and on several instances, the court was coming across cases in which complaints were closed without filing any final report before the competent court. In the present case, the court noted that though the decision to close the case was taken in 2022, the final report was not filed before the concerned court till a notice was issued on the present plea.

“This Court also notes with serious concern that this is not an isolated case. In several recent instances, Investigating Officers have been closing complaints in a routine and mechanical manner, without filing any final report before the competent Court,” the court said.

The court added that if the present case had not been filed, the inaction would have continued indefinitely, and the closure report might never have been filed. The court remarked that the approach of the police reflected a serious lapse in adherence to legal procedure and a denial of justice to the affected parties.

“It must also be emphasized that had the petitioner not approached this Court, the inaction would have continued indefinitely, and the closure may have never been brought on record. This approach reflects a serious lapse in adherence to legal procedure and has resulted in the denial of justice to the affected parties,” the court noted.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Zarina Begum seeking to transfer an investigation to the CBCID or any other investigating agency. Zarina had lodged a complaint at the Choolaimedu Police Station alleging that certain valuables had been stolen from her residence. Zarina had submitted that though she had filed the complaint in 2018, the investigation was still pending, and no meaningful progress had been made. Thus, she had sought to transfer the investigation to the CB-CID or any other investigating agency.

When the High Court took up the matter, the Government Advocate informed the court that the investigation had been completed and the complaint was closed by the police. The court was also informed that a closure report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate on July 5, 2025.

The court, however, was surprised at this submission and noted that though the FIR was registered as early as in 2018, no closure report had been filed till now and neither the complainant was informed about the closure. The court thus opined that the closure report was filed only after issuance of notice in the present case and pursuant to the scrutiny of the court.

The court also asked the Government Advocate to give details of all the Inspectors of Police who were in charge of Choolaimedu Police Station during the relevant period. On perusal of the details, the court noted that the closure decision was taken in 2022 but no closure report was filed as mandated under Section 173(2)(i) CrPC, nor was any intimation given to the Magistrate.

The court emphasised that once an FIR is registered and an investigation is completed, the police is legally bound to file a final report, whether for recommending prosecution or for closing the case. In the present case, the court noted that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements was a serious procedural violation and reflected a grave dereliction of duty.

The court thus directed the DGP to place the officer, who was in charge of the police station in 2022 under suspension for failure to submit the closure report. The court also directed DGP to take disciplinary action against all officers who had been in charge of the police station during the relevant period.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Mohammed Shafith

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: S. H. Zarina Begum v. The State

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 259

Case No: Crl.O.P.No.19180 of 2025