Supreme Court: It is mandatory for police to obtain permission of Magistrate for doing further investigation

 Even though the statute does not require express permission, the law as it has developed, has made abundantly clear that seeking of permission from the concerned Magistrate has evolved into a requirement. In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali 6, it has been held as follows:

“49. Now, we may examine another significant aspect which is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have been understood and applied by the courts and investigating agencies. It is true that though there is no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct “further investigation” or file supplementary report with the leave of the court, the investigating agencies have not only understood but also adopted it as a legal practice to seek permission of the courts to conduct “further investigation” and file “supplementary report” with the leave of the court. The courts, in some of the decisions, have also taken a similar view. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to conduct “further investigation” and/or to file a “supplementary report” will have to be read into, and is a necessary implication of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will fully come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters which are understood and implemented for a long time, and such practice that is supported by law should be accepted as part of the interpretative process.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ______________________ OF 2026

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 16149 of 2024)

PALINISWAMY VEERARAJA & ORS. Vs  THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 561.

Dated: May 26, 2026

Print Page

Delhi HC : Whether the court can reject default bail application of accused if further investigation is going on?

 So far as the submission that provision of 'further investigation' as contained in Section 193(9) is camouflage to defeat the right of the accused person to seek 'default bail' under Section 187(3) of BNSS 2023, we may only observe that the provision contained in Section 193(9) and those of Section 187(3), operate in different fields and further that Section 193(9) does not in any manner acts as a camouflage to such right. 

{Para 14}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (Crl) 3101/2024

Decided On: 27.08.2025

Yash Mishra Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.K. Upadhyaya, C.J. and Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

Author: D.K. Upadhyaya, C.J.

Citation:  MANU/DE/7613/2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether a prosecution witness in Session trial can produce documents not part of the charge-sheet filed before the Court?

A perusal of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the entire scheme contemplated therein demonstrates that there is no provision available for a witness to directly seek production of additional documents during the course of sessions trial and at the time of recording of his/her evidence. The Sessions Court in the present case failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. While passing the impugned order, the Sessions Court also failed to appreciate that permitting such production of additional documents by the witnesses directly would prejudice the accused persons by depriving them of a fair opportunity to prepare their defence. The whole purpose of filing of charge-sheet, upon completion of investigation along with documents upon which the prosecution desires to place reliance, would be defeated if witnesses are permitted to directly produce additional documents in such a manner. {Para 21}

22. The additional documents could be produced by following the procedure of further investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the Prosecutor taking a call as to whether such documents need to be produced in order to prove the charge against the accused.

23. In view of the above, it is found that the impugned order is unsustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 688 of 2020

Decided On: 15.07.2021

Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1765/2021

Print Page

Rajasthan HC: S.193(9) of BNSS Bars Further Investigation After Filing Of Police Report Without Permission Of Trial Court

 Before parting, I may also hasten to add here that, in any case, where a report under section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has already been filed against the prime accused, no further investigation can be carried out without the permission of the learned trial court, in view of Section 193(9) of BNSS. For ready reference, the relevant part of the Section 193 of the BNSS, with emphasis on sub-clause 9 thereof, is reproduced herein below: {Para 7}

"SECTION 193: Report of police officer on completion of investigation

(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (3) 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 as the State Government may, by rules, provide; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) 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 (3): Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court."

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No. 1375/2023

Decided On: 25.09.2024

Gajendra Singh Shekhawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Arun Monga, J.

Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:39977,MANU/RH/1468/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are powers of Magistrate, police and accused regarding further investigation by police?

Thus, even where chargesheet or Challan has been filed by the police Under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the CrPC, the police can undertake further investigation in respect of an offence Under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC. [Para 47]

4. Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the various decisions, it is well settled that Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation, even after the court takes cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. [Para 64]

5.Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no bar against conducting further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted Under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. Prior to carrying out further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the Accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused while considering an application for further investigation Under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. [Para 77]

6. The Second proviso to Section 17 of the 1988 Act directs that the offence referred to under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the 1988 Act shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. A superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for such offence is commenced. Before directing such investigation, the Superintendent of Police or an officer superior to him is required to apply his mind to the information and come to an opinion that the investigation on such allegations is necessary. The argument canvassed on behalf of the Accused persons is that there is no such order of the police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police in the chargesheet. This issue was not even raised before the High Court. Even otherwise, this is a question of fact and a matter of record. If it is the case of the Accused that there is no such order on record, the same may be pointed out to the trial court in the course of the trial. It is for the trial court to verify the record, look into it and take an appropriate call on this issue in accordance with law. [88]

Ratio Decidendi:

There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1300-1302 of 2023.

Decided On: 28.04.2023

State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hemendhra Reddy and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0486/2023,2023 INSC 460.

Print Page

Whether accused is entitled to be released on default bail if further investigation in respect of other accused is pending or for production of some documents?

In this regard, this Court recently held in case of CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan and Anr.2 that:

Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the Accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other Accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the Accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2024 

Decided On: 12.03.2024

Dablu Kujur Vs. The State of Jharkhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0194/2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court : The Magistrate can treat Application Seeking Further Investigation As Protest Petition

 It is true that the prescribed and appropriate

recourse for the appellant would have been to submit a

Protest Petition against the chargesheet filed by the

Investigating Officer, in which the second respondent was

not put up for trial for offences under Sections 376, 417

and 420 of IPC. The appellant, instead, moved an

application captioned as “under Section 173(8) of

Cr.P.C.” The averments made in that application reveal

that the appellant protested against deletion of charges

under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of IPC and she made an

endeavour to bring on record the material which would

prima facie establish the commission of these offences.

We fail to understand what prevented the Magistrate from

treating that application purportedly filed under Section

173(8) of Cr.P.C. as a Protest Petition and then decide

the same on merits. A technicality like the caption of

the application/petition could not be an impediment to

consider the substance thereof and then determine whether

or not the matter required further investigation so as to

find out the prima facie element of offences under

Sections 376, 417 and 420 of the IPC. Such a permissible

procedural recourse has been unfortunately overlooked by

the High Court as well. {Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.562 OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No . 11685/202 2 )

XXX  Vs THE STATE 

Dated: February 02, 2024.

Print Page

Whether accused can claim benefit of default bail if investigation regarding other accused is going on?

  It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that it

is to be read in its entirety. Construction of a statute should be

made in a manner so as to give effect to all the provisions

thereof. Remand of an accused is contemplated by Parliament

at two stages; pre-cognizance and post-cognizance. Even in

the same case, depending upon the nature of charge-sheet

filed by the investigating officer in terms of Section 173 of the

Code, a cognizance may be taken as against the person

against whom an offence is said to have been made out and

against whom no such offence has been made out even when

investigation is pending. So long a charge-sheet is not filed

within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the

Code, investigation remains pending. It, however, does not

preclude an investigating officer, as noticed hereinbefore, to

carry on further investigation despite filing of a police report, in

terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code.

39. The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in

regard to an investigation leading to filing of final form under

sub-section (2) of Section 173 and further investigation

contemplated under sub-section (8) thereof. Whereas only

when a charge-sheet is not filed and investigation is kept

pending, benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of

Section 167 of the Code would be available to an offender;

once, however, a charge-sheet is filed, the said right ceases.

Such a right does not revive only because a further

investigation remains pending within the meaning of subsection

(8) of Section 173 of the Code.”{Para 38}

25. In view of the afore-stated legal position, we have no hesitation in holding that the chargesheet having been filed against the respondents-accused within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly committed by them, the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section167(2) on the ground that the investigation qua other accused was pending. Both, the Special Court as well as the High Court having committed serious error of law in disregarding the legal position enunciated and settled by this Court, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2024

( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 11775 OF 2023)

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs

KAPIL WADHAWAN & ANR

Author: BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

Dated: JANUARY, 24TH 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 58.

Print Page

Can The Home Secretary order further investigation or reinvestigation of a Criminal case by another agency?

 That thereafter, non-bailable warrant was issued against Respondent No. 8 and only thereafter, mother of Respondent No. 8 - Accused moved an application before the Secretary (Home) for further investigation and he transferred the investigation to CBCID, inter-alia, on the ground that the so-called eye witnesses of the murder were not the eye witnesses. The request of the mother of Accused has been accepted by the Secretary (Home) and the investigation was transferred to another agency, namely, CBCID despite the fact that after the first chargesheet, the investigation was handed over to the District Crime Branch to further investigate the case and they filed the supplementary chargesheet in which Respondent Nos. 8 and 11 were even chargesheeted. Therefore, as such it is not a case of further investigation, but is a case of reinvestigation by another agency. The order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring the investigation/ordering further investigation by another agency and that too, on the basis of the application/complaint submitted by mother of the Accused is un- known to law.

7.1. There cannot be any dispute that even after the chargesheet is filed, it is the right of the investigating officer to further investigate in respect of offence even after a report Under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure forwarded to a Magistrate and as observed and held by this Court the prior approval of the Magistrate is not required. However, as per the settled position of law, so far as the reinvestigation is concerned, the prior permission/approval of the Magistrate is required. In the present case, the Secretary (Home) has passed an order for further investigation by CBCID and thereafter, the CBCID has sent the intimation to the learned Magistrate. No prior approval/permission as observed by the High Court has been accorded by the learned Magistrate. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has observed that the further investigation is ordered with the concurrence of the Magistrate, which is factually incorrect. What is on record is only an intimation to the learned Magistrate which in any case cannot be said to be concurrence of the learned Magistrate.

7.2. In any case, as it is a case of reinvestigation, the same is not permissible and that too by another agency without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate even while exercising the powers Under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Under what authority of law, the Secretary (Home) has transferred the investigation to another agency and/or ordered further investigation by another agency is not pointed out and that too at the instance of the Accused on the grounds which as such can be said to be the defences of the Accused which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The case on behalf of the Accused that as the Secretary (Home) is the head of the department and the further investigation was ordered by another agency on administrative side and therefore, the Secretary (Home) is justified in ordering further investigation by CBCID cannot be accepted. So far as the investigation is concerned under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Police Officer of the concerned Police Station, who is the investigating officer, has to investigate/further investigate the case under the supervision of Superintendent of Police. So far as the Secretary (Home) is concerned, he does not come into picture at all. If such powers are given to the Secretary (Home) in that case any Accused who is already chargesheeted may approach the Secretary (Home) and may get an order of further investigation or reinvestigation by another agency and obtain the fresh report nullifying the earlier chargesheet and get himself discharged. If the Accused is aggrieved by the chargesheet in that case, the remedy available to him would be either to file the quashing petition Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and/or to move an appropriate application for discharge before the learned Magistrate and it is for the High Court and/or the learned Magistrate as the case may be, to quash criminal proceedings or discharge the Accused. The Secretary (Home) and/or any Accused who is already chargesheeted cannot be permitted to circumvent such provision. It is to be noted that in the present case, Respondent No. 8 - Accused earlier did file the quashing petition, but failed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1294 of 2023 

 Bohatie Devi (Dead) through L.R.  Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.

Author: M.R. Shah, J.

Decided On: 28.04.2023.

Citation: MANU/SC/0473/2023

Print Page

Whether The District Police Chief can order further investigation without permission from the Magistrate or Higher Court?

In the present case, as is clear from FR II that S. Anilkumar, Inspector of Police, Vaikom conducted further investigation as per Order No. D2-43642/16/K, passed by a police officer and not by any duly empowered judicial officer. {Para 18}

19. The Chief Police Officer of a district is the Superintendent of Police who is an officer of the Indian Police Service. Needless to state, an order from the District Police Chief is not the same as an order issued by the concerned Magistrate. Referring to Vinay Tyagi (supra), this Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/SC/1306/2022 : (2023) 1 SCC 48 noted that there is no specific requirement to seek leave of the court for further investigation or to file a supplementary report but investigation agencies, have not only understood it to be so but have also adopted the same as a legal requirement. The doctrine of contemporanea exposito aids such an interpretation of matters which have been long understood and implemented in a particular manner to be accepted into the interpretive process. In other words, the requirement of permission for further investigation or to file a supplementary report is accepted within law and is therefore required to be complied with.

28. In terms of second question, the above discussion makes clear that the District Police Chief, Kottayam could not have ordered further investigation, as that power rests either with the concerned magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2023

Peethambaran  Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Decided On: 03.05.2023

Citation: MANU/SC/0522/2023

Print Page

Madras HC : Application For Further Investigation Can Be Filed Even After Commencement Of Trial

 Question No.2:-

12. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (cited supra) of which paragraph No.12 is quoted supra, clearly holds that the application for further investigation can be made even after the commencement of trial. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2004) 5 SCC 347.

“13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)

[(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC 1791]

it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not

altogether ruled out merely because cognisance has been taken

by the court. When defective investigation comes to light

during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation,

if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable

and all the more so in this case, that the police should inform

the court and seek formal permission to make further

investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being

silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an

early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences

found during course of proper investigation is as much

relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of

the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in

law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the same can

certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that

there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not

stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the

court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as

well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not

expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case.“

(empahsis supplied)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CORAM :

 MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.R.C.No.654 of 2022

Ganesan  Vs  SHO, District Crime Branch,

Pronounced on : 01.07.2022

Print Page

Whether police can further investigate the criminal case even though Magistrate has issued Summary in said case?

 Let us now consider the submissions of the learned Senior

Advocate for the petitioner that the Investigating Officer is not justified in reinvestigating the offence in which the jurisdictional Magistrate has already accepted the “A” summary.

49. Reference to some of the provisions of the Code would be

necessary in the context of the contention of the learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the petitioner. Before we deal with the relevant provisions, at

the cost of repetition, it would be necessary to mention that “A” summary was

granted by the jurisdictional Magistrate on 16.4.2019. The said order reads

thus:

:ORDER:

1. The report submitted by DYSP is accepted.

2. “A” Summary as prayed for is granted.”

50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwant Singh (supra) and

Gangadhar (supra) and in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. A.S. Peter (2008) 2 SCC 383

has held that when the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the

offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being

heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take

cognizance of the offence and issue process. In the facts of the case in hand,

admittedly, the informant was neither given any notice nor heard when the “A”

summary was granted. Even the aforesaid order was not communicated to the

first informant. The victim i.e. first informant, when became aware about the “A” summary, though some tweets as submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gupte, requested the State Government and Superior officer of police that the case should be properly and thoroughly investigated. 

On the instructions of superior officers of the Investigating Officer, the local Crime Investigation Branch, Alibaug filed a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate for conducting further investigation of the said offence and accordingly, intimated to the jurisdictional Magistrate that further investigation of the offence under section 173(8) of the Code is being carried out. The jurisdictional Magistrate recorded the endorsement as “seen and filed”. In this

context, it would be relevant to refer to section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads thus:

“SECTION 173 (8) CRPC

(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).”

 

55. Thus, there is no manner of doubt in our minds that the State

Government can always direct a further investigation to the concerned policeofficers, as done in the present case.

 56. Insofar as the provision regarding grant of “A” summary is

concerned, the procedure thereof is mentioned under Rule 219 of the

Bombay Police Manual, 1959. Rule 219, dealing with final reports, more

particularly, clause (3) reads thus:

“RULE 219 (3) OF BOMBAY POLICE MANUAL

(3) The final report should be written up carefully by the officers incharge

of the Police Station personally and should be accompanied by

all the case papers numbered and indexed methodically. If the accused

has been released on bail, the Magistrate should be requested to cancel

the bail bond. He should also be requested to pass orders regarding the

disposal of property attached, unless any of the articles, e.g., blood

stained clothes, are required for further use in true but undetected

cases. A request should also be made to the Magistrate to classify the

case and to issue an appropriate summary of his order, viz:-

“A’ True, undetected (where there is no clue whatsoever about the

culprits or property or where the accused in known but there is no

evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate (for trial).

“B” Maliciously false.

“C” Neither true nor false, e.g., due to mistake ot fact or being of a

civil nature.

“Non-cognizable” Police investigation reveals commission of only

non-cognizable offence.”

(emphasis supplied)

57. Reading of clause (3) would indicate that “A” summary is

granted in a case where the offence is committed but the same is undetected,

in that, where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or property or

where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify the same for

being sent to the Magistrate (trial). The jurisdictional Magistrate has

classified the case and issued “A” summary in this case. Consequent upon

receiving instructions pursuant to the complaint made by the victim to the

superiors, the local Crime Branch intimated the jurisdictional Magistrate that

they want to the carry out further investigation in the offence.

58. The intimation thereon was given to the Magistrate who had

made an endorsement of “seen and file”. Not only that but even when the

application was made by the Investigating Officer for recording the

statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same

was recorded by the Magistrate. Their Lordships in the case of State of

Andhra Pradesh vs. A.S. Peter (supra) have in the context of section 173 of

Code of Criminal Procedure held that the law does not mandate taking prior

permission of Magistrate for further investigation. Their Lordships further

held that carrying out further investigation even after filing of chargesheet, is

a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further

investigation and reinvestigation. It is observed that whereas reinvestigation

without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.

59. We find that before carrying out the said investigation, the

Magistrate was intimated about the further investigation. Thereafter, even

the statements are recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure after obtaining permission from Chief Judicial Magistrate. In our

opinion, the further investigation cannot be termed as illegal and without

seeking permission of the Magistrate. The same is in consonance with the

power conferred by section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, which is

extracted hereinabove. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 4278 OF 2020

IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 4132 OF 2020

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami  Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Print Page

Whether police can further investigate the criminal case even without the permission of Magistrate?

 Their Lordships in the case of State of

Andhra Pradesh vs. A.S. Peter (supra) have in the context of section 173 of

Code of Criminal Procedure held that the law does not mandate taking prior

permission of Magistrate for further investigation. Their Lordships further

held that carrying out further investigation even after filing of chargesheet, is

a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further

investigation and reinvestigation. It is observed that whereas reinvestigation

without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 4278 OF 2020

IN

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 4132 OF 2020

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami  Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON: NOVEMBER 09, 2020.

Print Page

Whether the court should hear accused before directing further investigation in a criminal case?

 In the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra) after considering one another decision of this Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0402/1999 : (1999) 5 SCC 740, it is observed and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused before any direction for further investigation is made. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra), this Court in paragraph 11 held as under:

11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for all the potential Accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2020

Decided On: 02.03.2020

Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah  Vs.State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0241/2020,(2020) 4 SCC 22

Print Page

Whether an investigating officer can file chargesheet against one accused and conduct further investigation against other accused?

Section 173 of Cr.P.C. mandates the investigating officer to complete the investigation as early as possible. Section 167 of the Code also stipulates the time within which the investigation is to be completed by the investigating officer. Failing to do so would entail in the accused being released on statutory bail as provided under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. In case there are more than one accused and some of them are absconding, the investigating officer is not expected to wait till the absconding accused is arrested so as to proceed with further investigation with regard to his involvement. With the available evidence on record, he is at liberty to file a final report against the accused, who have already been apprehended. As and when the absconding accused is available, a final report can be filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. as against him also. The case of the prosecution in the instant case is that weapon allegedly used by the 2nd accused was not recovered and it could not have been done so in his absence. It is only after the arrest of the 2nd accused that the provisions under Section 27 of the Evidence Act could come into play and on the basis of a statement that could be recorded whilst in custody the recovery could be made. The final report filed by the investigating officer against the 1st accused in this case makes it clear that the weapon involved in the commission of the offence was yet to be recovered from the 2nd accused, who was absconding with the weapon. Nothing precludes the investigating officer from reserving his right to arrest the 2nd accused as and when he is available and then proceed to recover the weapon and file a final report as against him.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl. MC. No. 1797 of 2017

Decided On: 30.06.2020

 Sunil Raj  Vs.  Gopan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ashok Menon, J.

Citation: MANU/KE/1663/2020

Print Page

Whether the court can take cognizance of offence if the police have filed chargesheet against accused in the non-cognizable crime?

As a matter of caution, I feel it is just and necessary to enumerate some guidelines to the learned Magistrates and to the Department of Police. The Judicial Magistrates who are empowered to take cognizance u/s. 190 of Cr.P.C., they have to strictly adopt the procedure as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. and also adhere to other relevant provisions under other laws for the time being in force. The following aspects are necessary to be followed by the learned Magistrates.

"(1) If a report is submitted by the Police the Magistrate has to meticulously look into the entire police papers to find out whether the offence is with reference to a cognizable or non-cognizable offences or mixture of both and the report is with reference to a noncognizable offence only, then the Magistrate has to ascertain whether cognizance can be taken or not, by ascertaining that all the legal requirements are fulfilled under Sections 190 and 154, and 155 and 2(d) of Criminal Procedure Code.

(2) If the report of the police is only with reference to a non-cognizable offence, then the Court has to find out whether at the initial stages, the Police Officer has taken the permission of the Court or proceeded with the investigation on the guise that some cognizable offence was also committed and only after investigation he came to know that a non-cognizable offence is committed and therefore, the report can be treated as a complaint u/s. 2(d) of Cr.P.C.

(3) If the Magistrate at the initial stages is of the opinion that the report cannot be treated as a complaint u/s. 2(d) of Cr.P.C., he should not take cognizance of the offence. He should return the charge sheet to the concerned police for following the proper procedure, or he can refer it for further investigation if necessary after according permission under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. without taking cognizance.

(4) If the report is treated as a complaint u/s. 2(d) Cr.P.C., then the Magistrate has to take cognizance and then to look into whether any further investigation is required. If so, he can refer the matter for further investigation u/s. 202 of Cr.P.C. and proceed further in accordance with law.

(5) The Magistrate has to apply his judicious mind in order to ascertain, whether the Court has got jurisdiction to take cognizance pertaining to a noncognizable offence in a very meticulous manner, though the Courts are over flooded with criminal cases, but the same cannot be an excuse for applying its judicious mind."

63. In the event of Court not applying its mind meticulously to the factual and legal aspects of the case, it would definitely lead to multiplicity and endless litigations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Criminal Petition Nos. 100319 and 100326 of 2014

Decided On: 25.07.2014

 Moin Basha Kurnooli  Vs.  The State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

Print Page

Supreme Court: It is not necessary to hear accused before directing further investigation by police

 It is required to be noted that, as such, even the proposed accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have any say at this stage in an application under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation, as observed by this Court in the case of W.N. Chadha

(supra); Narender G. Goel (supra) and Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra). In the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra) after considering one another decision of this Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P.

(1999) 5 SCC 740, it is observed and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8)

CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any direction

for further investigation is made. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra), this Court in

paragraph 11 held as under:

“11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct

the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any

inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the

court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is

made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only

result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for

all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of

being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not

burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2020

Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah  Vs  State of Gujarat 

M.R. Shah, J.

Dated:March 2, 2020.

Citation: (2020) 4 SCC 22

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory for court to hear accused before directing further investigation?

The question raised by the accused regarding summoning of the investigating officer by the trial court under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. in terms with session's court directions, is no more res-integra as is well- settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Bhagwan Samrdha Sreepada vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: (1999) 5 SCC 740, holding that the power of the court to direct further investigation cannot have any inhibition and there is nothing to suggest under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Thus the issue raised by the accused (therein) does not fall for any further debate or discussion as sought by the accused.

Delhi High Court

Shubham Bansal vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & ... on 4 December, 2019

CRL.M.C. 2024/2018

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate Can Invoke Power U/S 156(3) CrPC Even At Post-Cognizance Stage

There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate’s powers to order further

investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate’s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left

out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361

and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.478-479 OF 2017

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya  Vs  The State of Gujarat 

R.F. Nariman, J.

Dated:October 16, 2019.

Print Page

Leading Judgments of Supreme Court

1) Landmark Judgment of Supreme court for prosecution of accused U/S 498A of IPC

In the aforesaid analysis, while declaring the directions pertaining to Family Welfare Committee and its constitution by the District Legal Services Authority and the power conferred on the Committee is impermissible. Therefore, we think it appropriate to direct that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Joginder Kumar (supra), D.K. Basu (supra), Lalita Kumari (supra) and Arnesh Kumar (supra). It will also be appropriate to direct the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by this Court relating to arrest.

39. In view of the aforesaid premises, the direction contained in paragraph 19(i) as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove.

40. Direction No. 19(iii) is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), shall dispose of the same.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2015

Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs Union of India

Coram: 

Dipak Misra CJI,

A.M. Khanwilkar J,

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J.

Dated:September 14 , 2018.

Citation:(2018) 10 SCC 443

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page