Superintend of Police Not Liable For Investigating Officer’s Negligence In Not Filing Chargesheet/Closure Report On Time: Madras HC [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has held that Superintendents of Police cannot be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for the negligence of Investigating Officers in failing to file final reports or closure reports on time before courts, observing that while SPs have supervisory powers to monitor investigations, procedural violations by lower-level officers cannot be attributed to them.

Justice N. Sathish Kumar, writing for a Division Bench also comprising Justice M. Jothiraman, set aside the Single Judge’s direction for initiating disciplinary proceedings against five Superintendents of Police who served in Cuddalore between September 2, 2015, and the date of filing the petition.

The court addressed LPA No. 45 of 2025 filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging paragraph 9 of the order dated July 30, 2025, passed in Crl.O.P. No. 19886 of 2025, which directed the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the SPs.

The respondent had filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking a direction to file a final report regarding an alleged jewel-missing case that occurred in 2015. Despite the complaint being lodged in 2015, no action was taken. The police informed the court that since the case was undetected, the complaint was closed on November 12, 2017.

The learned Single Judge called for records to verify whether any final report was filed for closing the case. Finding that no final report had been filed and that the RCS (Report Closing Summary) was not served on the respondent, the Single Judge directed action against 14 Station House Officers who served from the date of FIR registration to July 16, 2025. Pursuant to that direction, show-cause notices were issued on July 26, 2025, to the 14 SHOs.

Additionally, the Single Judge sought details of the Superintendents of Police who served during the relevant period from September 2, 2015, to the date of filing the petition. After receiving the list, the Single Judge—“taking note of the fact that the Superintendent of Police having supervisory powers had not followed the case properly and had not verified whether the final report was filed in courts of law”—directed the DGP to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against them.

The Single Judge also directed continuation of investigation by a Special Investigation Officer, who had been appointed on August 10, 2025.

Mr. A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor, contended that “merely because procedures have not been followed by the Inspector of Police, the Superintendents of Police who held the post from the year 2015 cannot be brought into disciplinary proceedings.”

He argued further: “It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to follow the proper procedure. Though SPs normally have supervisory power and must monitor investigations, it remains the duty of the Investigating Officer to file such reports on time, and merely because such reports were not filed by the IO, the Superintendent of Police holding the position since 2015 cannot be found at fault.”

Justice Sathish Kumar acknowledged the Single Judge’s concern: “The learned Single Judge had, of course, taken a serious view of how the investigation had proceeded and that the Investigating Officer violated the procedure contemplated under the Code, and therefore passed a direction to take disciplinary action against them.”

However, the Division Bench distinguished between the duties of IOs and SPs: “While doing so, the learned Single Judge also directed the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendents of Police who held posts from 02.09.2015 to the date of filing the petition.”

The court further clarified the supervisory role while limiting liability: “No doubt, the Superintendent of Police has to monitor the investigation conducted by the lower-level officers. However, we are of the view that merely because some officers have violated procedure and not filed the final report or closure report in time before the court, that negligence cannot be attributed to the Superintendent of Police.”

The court held: “Therefore, we are of the view that the direction to take disciplinary proceedings against the Superintendents of Police who held the post from 2015 is not proper.”

The Division Bench set aside the specific direction requiring action against the SPs for mistakes committed by the SHOs/Inspectors of Police.

Importantly, the court clarified the limited scope of its interference: “It is made clear that except that direction, all other directions are to be scrupulously followed by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu.”

This means that disciplinary action against the 14 SHOs and the appointment of the Special Investigation Officer to continue the investigation remain unaffected and must be implemented.

The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Mr. A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the appellants, while Mr. N. Palani Kumar, Advocate, appeared for the respondent.

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. vs. Vijayarani

[Read Judgment]