Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XII: Information to the Police and Their Powers to Investigate
Section 173: Report of police officer on completion of investigation
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Every investigation must be completed without unnecessary delay. Once complete, the station officer must send the Magistrate a report (often called the charge-sheet or final report) stating the parties, the information, witnesses, whether an offence appears committed and by whom, and the accused's arrest or bail status.
- The text sets a time limit for completing rape investigations, counted from when the information was recorded, though the printed copy here omits the period.
- In rape cases, the report must say whether the woman's medical report is attached. The informant must be told of the action taken.
- The police must send the documents and witness statements the prosecution relies on, and can ask the Magistrate to exclude irrelevant or sensitive parts from the accused's copies.
- Further investigation can continue after the report, with further reports sent to the Magistrate.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. [(1A) The investigation in relation to [an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E] from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.]
(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; 1. Ins. by Act 5 of 2009, s.15 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009). 2. Ins. by s. 16, ibid. (w.e.f. 31-12-2009). 3. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 14, for —rape of a child may be completed within three months‖ (w.e.f. 21-4-2018).
(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, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170. [(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [ sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].]
(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 along with 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).
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 173
-
State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi
Whether the three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. lays down the correct proposition of law, or whether the same requires reference to, and resolution by a larger…
-
Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and Others
Whether the High Court was right in quashing the criminal proceedings against the private respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier complaints did not mention the two specific incidents dated 22.07.2021 and…
-
Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
Issue arose whether the direction for investigation to the police issued by the JMFC-Judicial Magistrate First Class u/s.156(3) CrPC which was quashed by the impugned orders, justified; and whether the JMFC had…
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her examination can be done in piecemeal.
-
Devendra Kumar v. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
High Court affirmed the order passed by the CMM directing registration of the FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss.186 and 341, Penal Code, 1860. Whether the CMM erred in involving the police in a…
-
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the son of the informant.
-
Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Whether the Court of Session, without itself recording evidence, can summon a person to stand trial in exercise of its powers u/s.193, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as an accused (along with others committed to it by…
-
Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
(i) Whether the High Court in exercise of its power u/s.482 of CrPC or under Art.226/227 of the Constitution is justified in refusing to quash the FIR No.380/2005, u/ss.420, 120-B and 34 of the IPC and the order dated…
-
Sukdeb Saha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Issue of growing crisis of student suicides in educational institutions; need for a preventive, remedial, and supportive framework for mental health protection and prevention of suicides by students; whether in the…
-
Kaushal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
Matter pertains to the expunction of strictures passed by the High Court against the Judicial Officer.
-
G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court refusing to quash FIR against the appellants-officials of the Municipal Corporation and the builder u/s.13(1)(d) r/w s.13(2) of the Prevention of…
-
Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another
Whether the appellant-company falls under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of s.2(wa) r/w the proviso to s.372, CrPC or whether s.378, CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances; whether an appeal under the…
-
Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr.
Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court whereby the petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing of the FIR for the offences punishable u/s.376(2)(n) IPC and s.3(2)(v) of the…
-
Visakhapatnam v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Others
Whether the two letters could have been looked at or relied upon by the Special Court for exercising its jurisdiction u/s.239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-
Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
Whether multiple FIRs registered across different States can be clubbed and consolidated in one jurisdiction, or at least within one district per State, under the Court’s power u/Arts.32 and 142 of the Constitution.
-
Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
These instant two appeals assail concurrent findings of conviction u/s.326A of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentence thereof against accused no.1 and accused no.2 respectively appellants herein.
-
Shrichand Rajaram Kukreja and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Whether the allegations levelled in the impugned-FIR disclose a dispute of civil in nature; whether the proceedings of the impugned-FIR and the chargesheet filed as a culmination of the investigation is a gross abuse of…
-
Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the Special Court while dealing with an application under sub-section 2 of s.44 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 made in respect of a large number of witnesses, recorded the satifaction which is…
-
Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
Whether the evidence led, in the instant case, justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power u/s.319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2, and whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold.
-
Punit Beriwala v. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the subject FIR against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whether a cognizable offence against them is prima facie made out from a reading of the subject complaint.
-
Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in directing for investigation by the CBI.
-
Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482, CrPC application filed by the appellants despite the matter being civil in nature.
-
Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. M/s Haldia Steels Limited & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in directing further investigation into the highly belated complaint filed by the complainant-Company after unexplained delay of six years by twisting and manipulating the facts to give a…
-
Yadwinder Singh v. Lakhi Alias Lakhwinder Singh & Anr. Etc.
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Trial Court issuing summons u/s.319, CrPC against the private respondents.
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
-
Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. and Another
Matter pertains to the liability of the appellant to be prosecuted for committing rape upon the complainant by giving her a false promise of marriage; and the correctness of the order passed by the High Court dismissing…
-
Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India and Others
Challenge to the constitutional validity and the right of the authorized officers to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act).
-
State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore
Issue arose as to whether the registration of the subsequent FIR is legally permissible and whether the High Court was correct in exercising its inherent powers in quashing the same.
-
Suman Mishra & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that there were specific allegations in the FIR and Chargesheet even after dropping the charge of Section 376, IPC in order to maintain the criminal proceedings against the…
-
Kuldeep Singh v. The State of Punjab & Ors.
The accused-appellant’s petition u/s.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR u/ss.366, 376 and 506 of Penal Code, 1860 was dismissed by the High Court.
-
State of Jharkhand v. Dr. Nishkant Dubey & Ors.
What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied to attract the provisions of Section 366 of the IPC? What are the essentials to constitute a trespass as criminal trespass? Whether the procedure provided under…
-
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether Village Police Patil is a Police Officer in terms of s. 25 of the Evidence Act; and whether the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder.
-
Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam
Interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) cases.
-
P. Manikandan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Whether the High Court was justified in directing re-investigation and retrial of the same offence on the same set of facts, after acquitting the accused by giving him the benefit of doubt; Whether, in the attending…
- Prabha Aggarwal v. State NCT of Delhi Anr
-
Bharti Arora v. The State of Haryana
Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was…
- Tushar Tamang v. State N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr
- The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Ombir Singh & Ors
- Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Ombir Singh & Ors
- Ajit Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Sh. Vijay Dev Dabas v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Dr. A.K. Singh v. State & Anr
- Dr. Manoj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
- Deepak Chaudhary v. State & Anr
- Court on Its Own Motion v. State
- Narender Singh v. Sheela Devi & Ors
- Mohd. Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT Delhi & Anr
- Javed Ali @ Javed v. National Investigation Agency
- Sanjay Aggarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Sanjeev Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Anr
-
Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr.
Whether after the acceptance of a negative Final Report in the first complaint, upon considering the written objections/protest petition and hearing the complainant, a fresh/second complaint on the same set of facts is…
- Neelam India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors v. The Investigating Officer Police Station Lahori Gate & Anr
- Ravinder Singh v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- G K Arora v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Nitin Saxena v. Government of NCT of Delhi Anr
- Pnc Infratech Limited v. Union of India Through Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Anr
- Sanaulla Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan v. State of Delhi & Anr
- Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. Enforcement Directorate
- Ms. Sangeeta Verma v. State & Anr
- Central Bureau of Investigtation v. Mahesh Agarwalla & Anr. & Ors
-
Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand & Others
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR, the cognizance order and the proceedings in pursuance thereof without considering the materials collected during investigation.
- M.S. Balakrishnan & Anr v. Registrar of Coop Societies & Ors
- Om Gupta v. State of Delhi NCT & Ors
- Om Gupta v. State & Anr
- Sehegal Hossain v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr
- Naveen Panchal v. State of NCT of Delhi
-
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was warranted.
- Vaibhav Jain v. Directorata of Enforcementre
- Ankush Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement
-
Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors.
Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation…
- Sarika Chaudhary & Anr v. State
- Swati Maliwal v. State
- Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agency
- Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agency
- Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agency
- Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agency
- Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. Ational Investigation Agency
- Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Inestigation Agency
- Jagtar Singh Johal @ Jaggi v. National Investigation Agencey
-
Raghuveer Sharan v. District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for protection under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as his statement was recorded earlier at the pre-summoning stage as a witness for…
- Ms. X v. The State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors
- Sukanya Mondal v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Pankaj Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement
-
Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Application against the rejection of the discharge application moved by the appellant-Company.
-
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maya Devi & Ors.
Whether the insured vehicle was involved in the accident; whether the insurance policy granted by the insurance company covers the incident; whether the insurance policy was fraudulently obtained.
-
K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Matter pertains to the right of the accused to file a fresh application u/s.216 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge after the charge is framed by the court, more particularly when his application seeking discharge u/s.227…
-
Mulakala Malleshwara Rao & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.
The complaint, which set in motion the Criminal Law, was at the instance of Respondent No.2-complainant, who filed the same against the former in-laws of his elder daughter, for not returning the ornaments (gold) which…
- Ritika Raj & Ors v. The State Through Sho & Anr
- Jitendra Kumar Meena v. State of NCT of Delhi
-
M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered…
-
Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India
Factors to be taken into consideration, under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, while deciding Bail Applications for offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the Act.
- Abdul Wahid Alias Saddam v. National Investigation Agency
- Amanpreet Kaur @ Preeti(In Jc) v. State
- Mohd Enamul Haque Through His Pairokar Abdul Hannan v. Directorate of Enforcement Through Assistant Director
- Atma Ram Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Devpati Devi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Gurcharan Singh & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Azad Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Arvind Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi