Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 173(8) — Further Investigation — Leave of Court Mandatory
(Paras 27–33)
Though Section 173(8) CrPC does not expressly mandate prior leave of the Magistrate for conducting further investigation after submission of final report under Section 173(2), the settled legal position requires the investigating agency to seek permission of the Magistrate before undertaking further investigation. The requirement of judicial permission is implicit, flowing from long-standing practice and doctrine of contemporanea expositio, and stands affirmed in authoritative precedents.
Power to Direct Further Investigation — Vested in Magistrate / Constitutional Courts — Not in Executive Authorities
(Paras 32–36)
The power to order further investigation rests with the Magistrate concerned or superior constitutional courts. Executive authorities, including Superintendent of Police or State Government officials, cannot direct further investigation on their own once a final report has been filed and accepted. Any such direction without judicial sanction is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Acceptance of Closure Report — Effect — Further Investigation Only Through Judicial Route
(Paras 6–8, 34–36)
Where a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC is filed and accepted by the Magistrate after notice to the informant, the matter attains judicial closure subject to statutory remedies. Any further investigation thereafter must necessarily be preceded by an order of the competent court. Administrative directions for reopening investigation undermine judicial authority and are impermissible.
Distinction — Further Investigation vs Fresh / De Novo Investigation
(Paras 29–31, 37)
“Further investigation” under Section 173(8) CrPC is a continuation of earlier investigation and does not amount to fresh or de novo investigation. While constitutional courts may order fresh or de novo investigation in appropriate cases, the investigating agency cannot unilaterally initiate further investigation after filing and acceptance of final report without court’s leave.
NHRC Directions — No Override of Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction
(Paras 9–13, 34–36)
Directions issued pursuant to recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission cannot supplant or bypass the statutory scheme under the CrPC. Even if administrative authorities decide that further investigation is required, such decision must be placed before the Magistrate for judicial consideration under Section 173(8).
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
The appeal arose from FIR No. 70/2013 registered for offences under Sections 376D, 352, 504 and 506 IPC at Mahila Police Station, Firozabad.
After investigation by Crime Branch, Mathura, a final report dated 30.05.2014 was submitted stating that no offence was made out due to contradictions in statements and lack of corroborative evidence. The Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, after issuing notices to the informant and finding no protest petition, accepted the closure report on 14.09.2015.
Subsequently, after approximately three years, a complaint was filed before the NHRC alleging lapses in investigation. The NHRC directed fact-finding inquiry and compensation. Acting upon this, the Under Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, issued communication dated 06.06.2019 directing investigation by CBCID and recommended further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
An Inspector of CBCID sought permission from the Magistrate on 22.04.2021 to conduct further investigation. However, no judicial order granting such permission was passed. Despite this, the Superintendent of Police, vide communication dated 26.04.2021, directed expeditious completion of further investigation. DNA samples were collected and investigation proceeded.
The High Court declined to quash these communications. The Supreme Court examined whether further investigation could be ordered without judicial leave.
The Court analysed Section 173(8) CrPC and relied upon the binding precedent in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, where it was held that although Section 173(8) does not expressly require permission, it is a settled practice and legal necessity that investigating agencies seek leave of the court before conducting further investigation.
The Court further referred to Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat and Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, which reaffirmed that the power to direct further investigation lies with the Magistrate or higher courts and not with executive police authorities.
The doctrine of contemporanea expositio was invoked to emphasize that long-standing judicial understanding requiring leave of court must be respected. The investigating agency cannot assume unfettered authority merely because Section 173(8) preserves its power to conduct further investigation.
The reliance placed by the State on Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana was distinguished. That case concerned exercise of constitutional powers to order de novo investigation and did not dilute the requirement of judicial oversight in ordinary further investigation under Section 173(8).
On facts, the Superintendent of Police proceeded to direct further investigation without any judicial order granting permission. The Magistrate had neither ordered nor sanctioned such further investigation. This amounted to executive overreach and encroachment upon judicial domain.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and quashed the communications dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021.
RATIO DECIDENDI
After submission and judicial acceptance of a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, further investigation under Section 173(8) can be undertaken only with the leave of the Magistrate concerned. Executive authorities or police officers cannot unilaterally direct or commence further investigation without judicial sanction. The power to order further investigation rests with the Magistrate or constitutional courts, and compliance with judicial oversight is mandatory.
RESULT
The appeal was allowed.
The impugned High Court judgment was set aside.
Communications dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 directing further investigation were quashed.
Observations made shall not prejudice pending criminal revision or related proceedings.
Pending applications stood disposed of.
No comments:
Post a Comment