Three months after she lodged the FIR, the constable handed her a piece of paper at the station counter and said, "case khatm — untraced report ho gayi". The truck driver who had killed her brother was, on paper, beyond reach. The witness statements she had given, the CCTV footage she had begged the SHO to seize, the call records of the accused's phone — none of that mattered. The matter would now go to the Magistrate's court for "acceptance". And then, she was told, the file would be closed.
If you are reading this, something close to that has happened to you. Maybe the report says "untraced". Maybe it says "no evidence". Maybe it simply says "case closed". And nobody at the police station has explained what comes next, what your rights are, or whether anybody is going to do anything at all.
This article tells you exactly what the law says — and what you, as the original complainant, can still do.
What "Untraced" or "Closure" Report Actually Means in Plain Language
When the police register your FIR, the law gives them a duty to investigate. That investigation can only end in three ways. Either the police find enough evidence and file a chargesheet, or they find no evidence and file a "final report" closing the case, or they say the offender could not be found and file what is colloquially called an "untraced" report.
The legal name for the second one is a "final report" under Section 189 BNSS (the successor to Section 169 CrPC). The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita does not actually use the words "final report" — neither did the old Code. As the Supreme Court explained in Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar (AIR 2006 SC 1937), the expression "final report" comes from the Police Manuals of various States, not from the statute itself. When there is no sufficient evidence to forward the accused to the Magistrate, the report is — as the Court put it — "termed invariably as final report or summary".
An "untraced" report is one species of that final report. It tells the Magistrate that the investigation could not identify or locate the offender, so the file should be closed. Whatever name your local thana uses — "untraced", "closure", "FR", "summary", or "no evidence" — the legal effect is the same. The police are asking the Magistrate to accept their conclusion that the case should not go to trial.
What matters is this: the police's report does not, by itself, close your case. Only the Magistrate can do that. And as you will see below, the Magistrate cannot do it without first hearing from you.
The Three Roads Open to the Magistrate When a Closure Report Comes In
This is the most important paragraph of this article. Read it twice if you need to.
When a final report or closure report lands on the Magistrate's table, the Magistrate is not bound to accept it. The Supreme Court in Abhinandan v. Dinesh (AIR 1968 SC 117) made it absolutely clear that the question of whether to take cognizance is the Magistrate's call, not the police's. The police's opinion is just an opinion; the Magistrate has to apply his own judicial mind.
The Orissa High Court summarised the position in Lakshman v. Sudhakar (AIR 1969 Or 149) — a decision still routinely relied upon — by laying out the three courses open to the Magistrate when he receives a closure report:
- Accept the final report and close the proceedings, striking off the case.
- Disagree with the report and direct further investigation, ordering the police back to work under Section 175(3) BNSS (formerly Section 156(3) CrPC).
- Ignore the police's contrary opinion altogether and take cognizance of the offence under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS (formerly Section 190(1)(b) CrPC), if the materials in the closure report itself disclose an offence.
The Supreme Court in Minu Kumari (above) and again in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja (AIR 2003 SC 2612) re-affirmed that even where the police submits a closure report, the Magistrate may, on perusing the materials, take cognizance and proceed against the accused. As Hinduja puts it, this is not interference with investigation — it is the Magistrate exercising his statutory power under Section 210 BNSS.
In other words: the police's "untraced" recommendation can be rejected by the Magistrate. Your job, as the complainant, is to give the Magistrate a reason to reject it.
Why the Magistrate Cannot Close Your Case Behind Your Back
This is the rule that most aggrieved complainants do not know about — and it is the rule that wins the most challenges.
When a closure report is filed, the Magistrate is procedurally bound to give the original informant — that is, you — notice and an opportunity to be heard before deciding whether to accept the report. This is the holding of the Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (AIR 1985 SC 1285) — the leading case on this point.
The commentary on Section 173 (now Section 193 BNSS) records this rule in two places. First, the Supreme Court held that the police-officer must communicate to the informant the action he has taken on completion of investigation, "because the informant is interested in seeing that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues process as a culmination of his FIR". And second:
"If, on a consideration of the Police report, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence, he must give the informant an opportunity to be heard at the time when the report is considered by the Magistrate, so that the informant may make his submissions."
The Supreme Court reinforced this rule in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah ((1997) 7 SCC 614). In that case the CBI submitted a closure report, the Magistrate accepted it without notice to the complainant, and the Supreme Court set the order aside. The judgment is blunt: it is the Magistrate's "duty… to give notice and opportunity of hearing to the informant before accepting the final report and closing the case".
So the first thing to check is whether the Magistrate gave you notice. If you were never told a closure report was filed, and the Magistrate quietly accepted it, the order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.
The Protest Petition (Naraji): Your Strongest Weapon
When you receive notice that a closure report has been filed, the proper response is not a verbal protest at the door of the courtroom. It is a written application called a "protest petition", filed before the Magistrate. In some States it is still called by its older name, the "naraji" petition.
The commentary records that whenever a final report is submitted, or whenever the informant has reasonable ground to believe one is about to be submitted, "the usual practice is for him to file a protest petition (known as 'Naraji' petition in some States)". This was settled almost seventy years ago in Mahabir v. State (AIR 1958 Or 11), and the position has only grown stronger since.
A protest petition is treated as a complaint. That means once you file it, the Magistrate has the power to:
- Examine you on oath under Section 223 BNSS (formerly Section 200 CrPC).
- Order a judicial inquiry under Section 225 BNSS (formerly Section 202 CrPC); or
- Dismiss the protest petition under Section 226 BNSS (formerly Section 203 CrPC) if no sufficient ground is made out.
The Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janaardan Reddy ((2003) 1 SCC 734) added a critical safeguard for the complainant: if the Magistrate dismisses the naraji petition, he is bound to give reasons. A bald order without reasons is liable to be set aside.
The High Courts in Bhagwan Das Agarwal v. State of U.P. (1990 CrLJ 916) and Mohammed Rafiq v. State of Bihar (1990 CrLJ 717) clarified two further useful points. First, a properly drafted protest petition — one that names the accused, sets out the offence and lists the witnesses — is itself sufficient material for the Magistrate to take cognizance. Second, the Magistrate need not even examine the complainant on oath if the protest petition, read with the materials in the closure report, already discloses an offence.
That is why a well-drafted protest petition matters. It is not just a complaint — it is the document that may end up persuading the Magistrate to ignore the police's closure recommendation entirely.
Demanding Further Investigation Under Section 193(8) BNSS
The second weapon is "further investigation". Even after the police file a closure report, the law allows the police itself, or the Magistrate, to direct that the matter be re-investigated.
Section 193 BNSS (the successor to Section 173 CrPC) preserves the old sub-section (8) almost verbatim. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Saldanna (AIR 1980 SC 326) held that this power is independent of any order of the Magistrate — the police may, at its own initiative or at the instance of the State Government, re-open the investigation and submit a further report. The same court in Ram Lal v. State (AIR 1979 SC 1791) extended this principle to hold that the police's power to make further investigation is "not exhausted by taking the cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate".
What does this mean for you, the complainant? Three things.
First, the closure report is not the last word. If you bring fresh material to the police's attention — a new witness, recovered CCTV, mobile call records — they can re-open the case. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi ((1995) 1 SCC 1) confirmed that even where the Magistrate has accepted the closure report and held the complaint to be false, the police can still file a further report under Section 173(8) CrPC (now Section 193(8) BNSS) and the Magistrate can take cognizance on the fresh material. This is not a "review" of the earlier order; it is a fresh application of judicial mind to fresh evidence.
Second, the Magistrate himself can order further investigation. In the same UPSC v. S. Papaiah case mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court held that when shortcomings of the investigation are brought to the Magistrate's notice and the Magistrate refuses to direct further investigation, "the Magistrate failed in his duty to exercise his jurisdiction". The Court was clear that the Magistrate is not being asked to "review" his earlier order; he is being asked to exercise an independent statutory power under what is now Section 193(8) BNSS.
Third, even after a fresh closure report on re-investigation, the Magistrate can still order yet further investigation. The bar is not on the number of further investigations; the bar is on substituting the Magistrate's "review" for the police's investigative function. As long as fresh material is shown, the door stays open.
When the High Court Can Step In
If the Magistrate refuses to act, your last forum is the High Court. There are two distinct routes here.
The first is the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A writ of mandamus may be issued directing the police or the Magistrate to perform their statutory duties — including, in an appropriate case, the duty to record an FIR or to direct further investigation. This power is recognised throughout the commentary on Chapter XII of the Code.
The second is the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC). This power can be invoked, for example, to set aside a Magistrate's order accepting a closure report passed without giving the informant notice and a hearing — a clear violation of the rule in Bhagwant Singh.
There is, however, an important word of caution. The High Court will not lightly interfere with the police's right to file a closure report. In R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu (AIR 2000 SC 1731), the Supreme Court set aside a High Court order which had directed the Investigating Officer to take back his closure report and consult the Public Prosecutor. The judgment makes the limits clear: the decision whether to file a closure report or a chargesheet is the exclusive jurisdiction of the IO. The High Court can correct procedural illegality (such as the absence of notice to the informant), but it cannot substitute its own opinion for the police's investigative judgment.
So the High Court is a strong forum, but it is not a parallel investigative authority. Use it for procedural failures and for orders that violate the Bhagwant Singh rule. For evidentiary disputes, the protest petition before the Magistrate is the better route. If your case has gone further and the police are also threatening you with quashing or counter-FIRs, see our overview of FIR-stage rights and remedies for the wider playbook.
One Important New Right Under the BNSS: The 90-Day Update
There is one new feature of the BNSS that complainants need to know about. Section 193(3)(ii) BNSS — a sub-section that did not exist in the old Section 173 CrPC — now mandates the police officer to inform the informant or the victim, within 90 days, by any means including electronic communication, of the progress of the investigation. The BNSS-CrPC Correspondence Table compiled in this project records this change in plain words.
What does this mean in practice? It means you no longer have to chase the SHO every Saturday for an update. From 1 July 2024 onwards, you have a statutory right to a written status update every 90 days. If the investigation is going nowhere, that update itself is your written record — and it is admissible material for any subsequent protest petition or writ challenge.
Three older rights have been carried over from the CrPC into the BNSS without dilution: the police's duty to communicate to the informant the action taken on completion of investigation (now under Section 193(2) BNSS), the Magistrate's three courses on receipt of the report, and the inherent power of the High Court (Section 528 BNSS). The Bhagwant Singh notice rule, the Lakshman v. Sudhakar three-courses formula, and the Saldanna further-investigation principle are all undisturbed by the BNSS — because the BNSS preserves the relevant provisions of the CrPC almost verbatim. The case-law you have read in this article therefore continues to apply in full force.
What Should I Actually Do Now?
If you have just been told the police are filing a closure report, work through this list — in order.
- Get a copy of the closure report. You are entitled to it. Without the report, you cannot meaningfully challenge it.
- Check whether you have been served notice. The Magistrate cannot accept a closure report without giving you notice and a hearing — the rule in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police. If notice was not served and the order has already been passed, that is your strongest single ground for setting it aside.
- Engage a criminal lawyer immediately. The window between filing of the closure report and acceptance by the Magistrate is short. If you wait, the Magistrate may pass an acceptance order in your absence and you will then be fighting an uphill battle. For complainants in Delhi-NCR, Pinaka Legal handles these matters routinely.
- Draft a written protest petition (naraji) with full particulars. Name the accused, set out the offence, list the witnesses, attach the documents the police failed to seize, and ask the Magistrate either to take cognizance under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS or to direct further investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS.
- Collect fresh material if any exists. A new witness statement, CCTV from a neighbouring shop, call detail records from the accused's phone — anything that the police did not look at — is the basis for further investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS.
- Appear on the date of consideration. Even if you have filed a written protest petition, attend court personally with your lawyer when the Magistrate is going to consider the closure report. Your physical presence makes it easier for the court to record you as a person heard.
- If the Magistrate has already accepted the closure report without notice, move the High Court. A writ petition under Article 226, or a petition under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC), is the appropriate remedy. The Supreme Court in UPSC v. S. Papaiah has set aside such orders before; the High Court can do so again.
- Watch for the 90-day update. Under Section 193(3)(ii) BNSS, the police owe you an update every 90 days. If they don't give it, that itself is documentary evidence that the investigation has stalled.
The closure report is a serious moment in any criminal case. It is also one of the most procedurally hostile, because the system moves quickly and the original complainant is rarely told what is happening in court. If you are in this situation and unsure how to draft a naraji petition, or whether to challenge the Magistrate's order or wait for further investigation, this is the kind of conversation that benefits from a sit-down with a lawyer who has done it before. Pinaka Legal — Advocates and Solicitors, Delhi — can take your file, study it, and tell you in plain words what your real options look like.
A Final Word for the Complainant Reading This at Night
The closure report is not the end. The Indian criminal justice system, for all its faults, has built into it three layers of protection for a complainant whose case the police have given up on. The Magistrate must hear you before accepting the report. You can file a naraji and turn it into a fresh complaint. You can ask for further investigation under Section 193(8) BNSS, and if all of this fails, the High Court is still open to you under Section 528 BNSS.
What the system will not do is fight on your behalf. The notice rule, the protest petition, the further investigation application — every one of them requires you, or your lawyer, to put paper before the court. Until that paper is filed, the closure report sits on the Magistrate's table waiting to be accepted.
You have a few weeks, sometimes a few months — but never as long as you think. Speak to a lawyer this week, not next month.
Written by the Pinaka Legal Editorial Team. For queries on closure reports, protest petitions or further investigation applications in Delhi or NCR, call +91 8595704798 or email info@pinakalegal.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the police close my FIR by themselves without going to the court?
No. The police can recommend closure by submitting a final or untraced report under Section 193 BNSS, but only the Magistrate has the power to actually close the case. As Abhinandan v. Dinesh (AIR 1968 SC 117) makes clear, the Magistrate is not bound by the police's opinion and must apply his own judicial mind. The police's report is the start of the closure process — not its end.
What is the difference between a 'closure report' and an 'untraced' report?
Both are species of 'final report' under Section 189 / 193 BNSS — the law itself does not formally distinguish between them. 'Untraced' usually means the police could not identify or locate the offender; 'closure' or 'final report' usually means there is no sufficient evidence. As Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar notes, the labels come from the Police Manuals of various States, not from the statute.
Will the court inform me before accepting the closure report?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi (AIR 1985 SC 1285) held that the Magistrate must give notice to the original informant and an opportunity to be heard before accepting any report that drops the case. Acceptance without notice is liable to be set aside, as the Supreme Court did in UPSC v. S. Papaiah ((1997) 7 SCC 614). If you were not informed, that is your strongest ground.
What is a protest petition or naraji?
It is a written application by the complainant challenging the closure report and asking the Magistrate either to take cognizance directly or to direct further investigation. The commentary on Section 169 traces the practice back to Mahabir v. State (AIR 1958 Or 11). Once filed, it is treated as a complaint and the Magistrate may proceed under Sections 223 to 226 BNSS (formerly Sections 200 to 203 CrPC). For full guidance on how to draft one, the FIR-problems cluster on the Pinaka Legal blog covers the practical points.
How long do I have to file a protest petition?
There is no fixed statutory period, but practical sense matters. File it before the Magistrate considers the closure report on merits. Once acceptance is recorded, you will be fighting both the police and an existing court order. Speak to a lawyer the same week you receive notice of the closure report.
Can I demand the police re-investigate my case?
Yes — under Section 193(8) BNSS (the successor to Section 173(8) CrPC). The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Saldanna (AIR 1980 SC 326) and Ram Lal v. State (AIR 1979 SC 1791) confirmed that this power is wide and can be exercised even after cognizance is taken. UPSC v. S. Papaiah additionally holds that the Magistrate can direct further investigation when shortcomings in the original investigation are brought to his notice.
What if the Magistrate dismisses my protest petition?
He must give reasons. The Supreme Court in Mahesh Chand v. B. Janaardan Reddy ((2003) 1 SCC 734) held that an order dismissing a naraji petition without reasons is liable to be set aside. You can then challenge the dismissal in revision before the Sessions Court, or invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC).
Can the High Court direct the police to file a chargesheet instead of a closure report?
No, and this is important. The Supreme Court in R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu (AIR 2000 SC 1731) held that the decision to file a closure report or a chargesheet lies in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer. The High Court can correct procedural illegality (no notice, no reasoned order, refusal to consider further investigation), but it cannot substitute its own view of the evidence for the IO's.
The police lost interest in my case after a few weeks. Is there any recourse short of a protest petition?
Yes. Section 193(3)(ii) BNSS — a new sub-section introduced from 1 July 2024 — requires the investigating officer to update the informant or victim every 90 days on the progress of investigation, including through electronic communication. If the updates are not coming, document this. The very absence of the 90-day update becomes useful evidence in any later protest petition or writ challenge.
Can I file a fresh complaint under Section 223 BNSS instead of a protest petition?
You can — and in many cases the protest petition is in fact treated as a complaint. The Calcutta High Court in Gopal v. Upendra (1984 CrLJ 838) held that even a fresh complaint filed after the Magistrate drops a case on a final report can be treated as a protest petition, and the Magistrate may proceed to examine the complainant under Section 200 CrPC (Section 223 BNSS). The two routes converge. The practical advantage of the protest petition is that it is filed in the same case file, and the Magistrate is already seized of the materials.
For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog.