1. Appeal challenging High Court's dismissal of writ petition seeking quashing of orders directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without court leave after closure report acceptance. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 130
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rajesh Bindal, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Pramod Kumar & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 687 of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 350 of 2024)
Dated: 04-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Bharat Mishra, Adv. Mr. Tiwari Prashantipriya Awadesh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Prakash Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorva Agrawal, A.A.G. Mr. Abhisehk Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv. Mr. Bharat Mishra, Adv. Mr. Tiwari Prashantipriya Awadesh, Adv. Mr. Suraj Prakash Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorva Agrawal, A.A.G. Mr. Abhisehk Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Further investigation – Police ought to follow procedure of seeking permission from Court to conduct “further investigation” and file supplementary chargesheet – Power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at discretion of Magistrate/Court concerned.
Headnote:
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 193(3) [Corresponding to Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376D, 352, 504 and 506 – Further investigation – Police ought to follow procedure of seeking permission from Court to conduct “further investigation” and file supplementary chargesheet – Practice of seeking leave of Court will have to be read into provisions of Section 173(8), and it is essentially a prerequisite for directing further investigation – Power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at discretion of Magistrate/Court concerned – In the event, police/ investigation agency is of the opinion that further investigation is necessary in any particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon them to file appropriate application before Magistrate/Court – Once such application is filed by investigation agency, Magistrate/Court would apply its judicial mind, to decide whether or not further investigation is to be ordered under purview of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – In present case, Superintendent of Police acted in complete defiance of procedure laid down under law while passing orders directing further investigation without seeking leave of Court – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 26, 28, 31 and 33)
Facts of the case:
The sole question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 193(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC (Section 193(9) of BNSS) without obtaining leave of the Magistrate/ Court concerned?
Findings of Court:
Opinions expressed herein should cause no prejudice to criminal revision preferred by original complainant or any other proceeding related to FIR No. 70/2013. Trial Court shall decide Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2017 and any other proceeding, on its own merits.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
The commission of the offence involves the act of falsely implicating the accused in a serious crime, such as rape, based on allegations that are later found to lack supporting evidence. In this case, the initial investigation concluded with a final report indicating that there was no sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the court accepted this report after proper notices to the complainant, who did not object or protest (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Subsequently, the authorities attempted to re-investigate the case by conducting further investigations, including DNA testing, without obtaining prior approval from the court, despite the fact that the final report had been accepted and the case was pending judicial proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The unlawful act of conducting further investigation without judicial permission, especially after the case had been closed and the final report accepted, constitutes a breach of legal procedure and undermines the judicial process. This act can be considered an abuse of authority and a violation of the legal rights of the accused, as the authority to order such further investigation rests solely with the court, and the police or investigation agencies acted beyond their legal jurisdiction in this context (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- rape (Para 4)
- investigation and inquiry
-
offences against the person
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend police cannot direct further investigation under Section 173(8) without court permission after closure report; State argues no bar exists and further investigation is merely continuation. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 32 )
3. Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and orders directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without court permission are quashed and set aside. (Para 1 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
4. Can the police conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/Court after a final report has been submitted and accepted?
No. The power to direct further investigation rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned. The police must file an application before the Magistrate/Court seeking permission, and the practice of seeking leave of the court is a prerequisite for directing further investigation under Section 173(8). (Para 3 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
5. Does the Magistrate have the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC after a police report has been filed?
Yes. The Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation after filing of a police report in terms of Section 173(6) of the Code. This power is in conformity with the principle stated in Bhagwant Singh case and is not barred by the scheme of the Code. (Para 26 )
6. Is a de-novo or fresh investigation permissible after the acceptance of a closure report under Section 173(2) CrPC?
No. Once the final report is accepted by the court, only the criminal court has the power to order further investigation. A de-novo investigation ordered without new material after years amounts to filling lacunae in the prosecution case. (Para 21 , 22 )
7. Can a Superintendent of Police direct further investigation without seeking leave of the Court?
No. The Superintendent of Police acted in complete defiance of procedure while passing orders directing further investigation without seeking leave of the Court, which is unbecoming conduct from an officer of such rank and undermines the authority vested in the Court of law. (Para 30 , 31 )
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Leave Granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants challenging the Judgment dated 20.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4000 of 2022 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”). The writ petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the High Court, wherein it refused to quash the Orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4, respectively.
3. The sole question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “CrPC”) (also refer to Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)), the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC (also refer to Section 193(9) of BNSS) without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/ Court concerned?
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. A fascicule of facts pertinent for the disposal of this appeal are that, on 19.11.2013, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 70/2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the FIR”) was registered against seven accused persons including the Appellants herein by the Respondent No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as “the original complainant”) for the offence punishable under Sections 376D, 352, 504, 506 respectively of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) at Mahila Police Station, Sub-district Sadar, District Firozabad.
5. During the investigation, owing to multiple applications being moved by the original complainant alleging danger to his life and his family members’ lives, the investigation was initially transferred from the Mahila Police Station to the Crime Branch, Firozabad, and subsequently to the Crime Branch, Mathura.
6. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the Final Report No.17/14 dated 30.05.2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Closure Report”), stating that no offence was made out against the accused persons (including the Appellants herein) in light of the contradictions between the statements of the original complainant under Section 161 and 164 CrPC. The relevant extract of the closure report is reproduced herein under:
“...On the basis of information of the informant, the aforesaid case was registered and investigation was undertaken. There is contradiction between the statements U/s. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the informant. There is enmity/litigation pending between the informant and the accused persons. The statements of the informant are not supported by other evidences. Hence, the offence is not confirmed. In absence of evidences, it is impossible to file challan against the accused persons before the Court. Hence, the case is closed by FR. Kindly approve it….”
7. After receiving the Closure Report, the Court of First Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, issued several notices to the original complainant. However, despite service of notices, he did not appear before the court, nor did he file any protest petition. The Court of First Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, after considering the Closure Report, has accepted the same vide order dated 14.09.2015, noting that the material on record did not support the prosecution's case. The relevant extract of the Order is reproduced herein under:
“ The case file was presented today. Notice has been sent to the informant several times. Despite the notice has been duly served to the informant several times, he had not filed any objection/protest petition against the final report. It is clear from the case diary and police documents and evidences available in the file that the statements u/s 161 CrPC and statements u/s 164 CrPC of the informant and the person with whom the victim had gone to the bridge on a motorcycle to search for her brothers, it
