Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XII: Information to the Police and Their Powers to Investigate
Section 174: Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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
When the police learn that a person has committed suicide, been killed by someone, an animal, machinery or an accident, or died in suspicious circumstances, they must inform the nearest empowered Executive Magistrate and go to the body. In the presence of two or more respectable local residents, they investigate and report the apparent cause of death and injuries (an inquest report).
- The body must be sent for post-mortem if a woman died by suicide or in suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, if her relative asks, if the cause of death is doubtful, or if the officer thinks it expedient.
- District and Sub-divisional Magistrates and specially empowered Executive Magistrates can hold inquests.
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) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may 1. Ins. by Act 5 of 2009, s. 16 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009). 2. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 14, for —section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 387D‖ (w.e.f. 21-4-2018).
be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate.
(3) [When—
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or
(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall], subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.
(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate.
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 174
-
Rajni and Another v. Union of India and Another
The deceased was pushed out of the running train resulting in his death. The claim petition of appellants herein was dismissed by the Tribunal on ground that claimants had failed to prove deceased was a bonafide…
-
Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead to a…
-
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…
-
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302, 376 and 397 IPC.
-
Shenbagavalli and Ors. v. The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District and Anr.
Appellants sought for quashing of the chargesheet submitted against them u/s.306 IPC.
-
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.
-
R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka And Others
Issue arose as regards the order by which High Court allowed the petition of the respondents thereby quashing FIR and further investigation under ss.34, 306, 420, 506 of Penal Code, 1860.
-
Amit Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(i) What is the scope of section 174 CrPC and how is it different from investigation pursuant to filing of FIR under section 154 CrPC. (ii) Whether recourse to inquest proceedings under Section 174 of the CrPC by the…
-
Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose as to whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision application filed by the appellants assailing the order of the trial court dismissing their discharge applications u/s.227 CrPC.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in declining the prayer of the appellant to discharge him from the offences under Section 306, Penal Code, 1860.
-
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Whether the prosecution has proved by leading clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence that the accused had committed forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim and, thereafter, strangled and killed…
-
Ashok Verma v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Whether concurrent conviction of the appellant u/ss.302, 201 and 498A of the IPC for the murder of his wife is justified.
-
Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while reversing its finding of acquittal.
-
Mandakini Diwan and Anr. v. The High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Matter pertains to investigation as regards the suspicious death of the wife of senior judicial officer.
-
Ranjeet Mittal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Etc. Etc.
High Court whether justified in quashing the charges against Respondent Nos.2-5 (husband and in-laws of the victim-deceased) holding that prima facie the respondents did not abet the deceased to commit suicide.
-
Madan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Six deaths were caused on account of brutal firing by the appellants and other accused persons. The trial court imposed sentence of capital punishment to the appellants (‘M’ and ‘S’) herein for the offence punishable…
- Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of
-
Naveen @ Ajay v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether appellant was afforded a fair trial; whether he was deprived of his valuable legal rights.
- The State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gangi Reddy
- The State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
- Mariano Anto Bruno & Anr. v. The Inspector of Police
- Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Mohammad Latief Magrey v. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
- The State of Sikkim v. Jasbir Singh & Anr.
- Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand
- Shri Mahadev Meena v. Praveen Rathore and Another
- Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. The State of Rajasthan and Others
- Rana Nahid @ Reshma @ Sana & Anr. v. Sahidul Haq Chisti
- State of Uttarakhand v. Darshan Singh
- Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
- The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Suresh
- Balvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rupinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab & Others
- Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and Anr.
- Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. Etc.
- State of Rajasthan v. Ramanand
- Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka
- Bimla Devi v. Rajesh Singh &Anr.
- State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh
- M.Narayan v. State of Karnataka
- Rajan v. Joseph & Ors.
- Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana
- O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Munni @ Syed Akbar v. State of Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode
- Ramesh v. State Through Inspector of Police
- State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra & Ors.
- Sobaran Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P.
- Paramsivam & Ors. v. State Through Inspector of Police
- Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana
- Sudarshan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- Tummala Venkateswar Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
- Madhu @ Madhuranatha & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
- L. Krishna Reddy v. State by Station House Officer & Ors.
- Kantilal Martaji Pandor v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Kusti Mallaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
- Bable @ Gurdeep Singh v. State of Chattisgarh Tr.P.S.O.P. Kursipur
- Govindaraju@ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr.
- M. Mohan v. The State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
- M. Nageshwar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of U.P.
- Surendra Pal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
- Sri Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr. v. State of Assam
- G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Dharamveer and Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Dammu Sreenu v. State of A.P.
- Nafe Singh v. State of Haryana
- Gopal v. State of Rajasthan
- Aqeel Ahmad v. State of U.P.
- Premkumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala
- Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree and Anr.
- Manivel & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Devidas Ramsunder Shukla v. State of Maharashtra
- Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Noorjahan v. State Rep. by D.S.P.
- Sanwariya Lal v. State of Rajasthan
- Anil v. State of Haryana
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra
- Jagdish Murav v. State of U.P. and Ors.
- Budh Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State of U.P.
- N. Somashekar (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of Karnataka
- Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and Anr.
- Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Ors.
- R.Sarala v. T.S.Velu
- Asokan v. State Represented by Public Prosecutor, Madras
- Suresh Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- George and Others v. State of Kearla and Anr .
- State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Muniappan
- State of U.P. v. Abdul and Ors.
- D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
- Mahendra Rai v. Mithilesh Rai and Ors.
- Girish Yadav and Ors. Etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Ors.
- L/Nk. Meharaj Singh/Kalu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Bhagwan Swarup and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
- Khujji@Surendra Tiwari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Etc. Etc. v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr.
- Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra