IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement of court permission for further investigation is essential and must be adhered to, as established by recent judicial interpretations.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure V order dated 14.05.2024 in S.C.No.103/2024 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Changanassery, arose out of crime No.961/2023 of Manimala Police Station, Kottayam. The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.

3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) as well as Section 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(f) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’ for short). The petitioner, who is the accused facing trial, is aggrieved by Annexure V proceedings dated 14.05.2024 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Changanassery and the same reads as under:

“Accused is present. CW3 and CW4 present. Station House Officer filed a petition intimating that further investigation is going on. Await further investigation report. CW3 and CW4 appear on fresh summons. Issue stop memo to CW2. Call on”.

4. At the time of admission also, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that as per the impugned proceedings, further investigation has been going on without obtaining permission from the court. Accordingly, a report from the learned Special Judge has been call for. As per the report dated 05.07.2024, the learned Special Judge reported that in the order impugned, she omitted to note about grant of formal permission and the same is an inadvertent mistake on her part.

5. Regarding the necessity of permission, for the purpose of further investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though starting from 1979 to 2021, the law regarding permission has been interpreted and held that nowhere in Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., it has been provided that further investigation could be conducted after getting permission of the Court as per the decisions reported in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn), reported in 1979 KHC 546 SC, Doraiswamy Raju v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 KHC 817, Abdul Latheef and Others v. State of Kerala, reported in 2014 KHC 3694, Gopalakrishnan P alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Others. But a change in law could be noticed in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2022 KHC 7076 as well as Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, reported in 2023 KHC 6510 when the Apex Court held that getting permission for further investigation is a legal requirement.

6. In Devendra Nath Singh’s case (supra), the Apex Court dealt with the issue in paragraph No.12.1 of the decision, which reads as under:

“12.1. In the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra), this Court dealt with the wide range of issues relating to the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC as also the powers of the Magistrate under Section 173 CrPC; and different vistas of the processes of conducting ‘fresh investigation’ and/or ‘further investigation’. This Court observed and held as under:-

“43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior Courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct “further investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even “re-investigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “re-investigation” are synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior Courts are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior Courts very sparingly and with great circumspection.

44. We have deliberated at some length on the issue that the powers of the High Court unde