Investigating Officers retain the right to conduct further investigation and file supplementary charge-sheets without court permission, although seeking such permission is an established practice.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 09/09/2024, wherein, the application filed by the prosecution for seeking permission to file additional charge-sheet on record is allowed and the permission is granted to submit supplementary charge-sheet on record.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit that the Investigating Officer has not sought permission / leave from the learned Magistrate for conducting the further investigation. He further submits that there is no material against the petitioners to connect them with the crime. Even if the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer of the informant is taken into consideration, the same does not demonstrate that there is an overt act on the part of petitioners. The original charge-sheet was filed on 12/01/2022, however, the statement dated 12/01/2022 of Rahul Pandurang Deshpande, who is the informant is not filed on record alongwith original charge-sheet. It was submitted that with mala fide intention, the Investigating Officer has implicated the present petitioners in the crime. Lastly, he relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, to submit that if the leave is not sought from the learned Magistrate, then the supplementary charge-sheet would not be maintainable, and accordingly, he prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 09/09/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara.

4. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. submits that admittedly the charge-sheet is filed on 12/01/2022, however, thereafter, the statement of informant was recorded. He further pointed out that the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail and there is also sufficient evidence against the petitioners as the incident was captured in the C.C.T.V. footage as well as in the mobile phone. There were some serious lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, and therefore, the Court below, while passing the order below Exh.82, in view of aforesaid lapses directed the Superior Officer to take necessary action against the Investigating Officer. Lastly, he submits that further investigation is the continuation of the initial investigation, and therefore, there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.P.P., it appears that the original charge-sheet was filed on 12/01/2022, and on the same date, the statement of the first informant was also recorded. There is no dispute regarding the filing of the charge-sheet on 12/01/2022, however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the statement of the informant was recorded on the same day without there being any evidence against the petitioners. It is true that the statement was recorded on 12/01/2022, however, whether it was recorded before or after filing of the charge-sheet is a disputed question of fact and this Court cannot go into same. The fact remains that the said statement implicates the present petitioners.

6. Admittedly, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed only after the Court granted permission on 09/09/2024 by allowing the application of the Investigating Officer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no new material to justify the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet deserves no consideration for the reason that the record shows that the statement of the first informant recorded on 12/01/2022, the details in respect of the present petitioners, the list of witnesses t