Madras HC: Filing error-free final reports is mandatory responsibility of IOs

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has explicitly stated that the filing of error-free final reports is a mandatory responsibility of investigating officers (IOs), in a plea seeking to quash an FIR registered by the Soorangudi police, Thoothukudi.

Petitioner Macharaja, one of the accused in a case, sought to quash the FIR registered against him in 2020, citing a delay in filing the final report.

The government advocate submitted that the investigation had already been completed and that the final report had been filed through e-filing before the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, on November 27, 2024. However, it is yet to be taken on file.

“Since it is represented that the final report had already been filed, this court was not inclined to entertain the petition for quashing the FIR without ascertaining the materials relied upon by the investigating agency in the final report. However, it is for the petitioner to challenge the final report, if so advised,” the advocate said.

At the same time, it was noticed that though the final report had been filed in November 2024, it had not been taken on file for over eight months. Therefore, the court calls for a report from the Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam, explaining the delay.

Pursuant to the direction, the Judicial Magistrate submitted a report stating that the final report was filed through e-filing. However, Athachi and Form 91 were not uploaded, as a result of which the final report was returned on December 6, 2024.

Thereafter, the investigating officer re-submitted the final report physically on April 15, 2025. Even in this resubmission, the Athachi was not enclosed, which was communicated to the investigating officer on June 5, 2025. After rectifying the defects, the investigating officer re-submitted the final report on July 30, and it was finally taken on file on August 1.

Justice B Pugalendhi, in his order, said that after perusing the report, it appears that the final report was returned on account of non-filing of Athachi and Form 91, instead of being retained on file, and the defect was communicated separately. Rule 25(6) of the Criminal Rules of Practice specifically prohibits the return of final reports and directs that a memorandum should be issued to the investigating officer to rectify the defect, with escalation to superior police officers if not complied with within three months. The procedure adopted in the present case is therefore contrary to the said rule.

“Acceptance of physical resubmission, as in the present case, is inconsistent with the said procedure and defeats the very object of digitisation,” the order stated. “This court has, therefore, sought for the particulars concerning the e-filed final reports and their status, from the districts coming under the jurisdiction of this bench”.

Several circulars issued by the police department emphasise the necessity of procedural compliance before filing the final report. There is no second thought that these instructions must be followed strictly to avoid unnecessary technical delays.

In order to address the pendency of final reports that remained untaken on file due to curable defects, this Court initiated a coordinated one-time exercise as an interim measure for the districts.

The district-wise progress during the drive showed measurable improvement. Before the exercise, the total number of final reports filed through e-filing was 4,27,204, which has risen to 4,62,680 as on October 7, 2025, reflecting active follow-up and rectification of procedural lapses.

Therefore, the court records its appreciation of the coordinated efforts of the judiciary and police officials in streamlining the e-filing of final reports. With the above observations and directions, the petition was disposed of.