Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Asha, W/o. Antony @ Sibichan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala and Anr. – Respondents
Crl.M.C.No.7975 of 2024-F
Decided On : 24-10-2024
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Criminal Procedure Code – Section 173(8) – Petition for quashing proceedings against the 6th accused in a criminal case – The court held that further investigation without formal permission does not render the supplementary report non-est, provided there is sufficient material for inclusion of the accused. (Paras 3, 8, 12, 14)
(B) The court emphasized the necessity of obtaining permission for further investigation as a matter of practice, although not strictly mandatory under the law. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case :
The petitioner, initially not named as an accused, was later included as the 6th accused after further investigation, which the petitioner contended was without basis.
Findings of Court :
The court found that the inclusion of the petitioner was supported by sufficient materials and that the supplementary report was legally sustainable.
Issues : The main issues were whether further investigation without court permission invalidates the supplementary report and whether the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused was justified.
Ratio Decidendi : The court ruled that while formal permission for further investigation is advisable, failure to obtain it does not automatically invalidate the supplementary report if there is sufficient evidence.
Result : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(A. Badharudeen, J.)
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS’ for short) by the accused in Crime No.248/2024 seeking the following reliefs:
(ii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper as on the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The petitioner is the 6th accused in the above case, where he alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 341, 324, 325, 326, 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of registering FIR, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused. Originally accused Nos.1 to 5 were alleged to have committed the above offences after forming into unlawful assembly with knowledge that they are all members of the assembly at 5.45 p.m on 22.02.2020 in front of the house of the defacto complainant and thereafter the 1st accused caused stab injury on the back side of the neck of the defacto complainant. The 2nd accused beat the defacto complainant on his head by using a bamboo stick and also caused stab injury to the wife of the defacto complainant. The 3rd accused caused injuries on the nose of the brother of the defacto complainant and the 4th accused beat him with bamboos.
3. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted without obtaining permission from the court and additional report also was filed. After the further investigation, the petitioner also got incorporated as the 6th accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was roped into this crime since the petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the defacto complainant and 8 others in the instant crime alleging attack against the petitioner at 5 p.m on 22.02.2020 and accordingly another crime also was registered. Therefore, inclusion of the petitioner as an additional accused is without any basis and the supplementary final report filed by incorporating the petitioner as the 6th accused, pursuant to further investigation, without the permission of the court is non-est and the same is liable to be interfered. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of the Apex Court reported in [2023 (4) Supreme (SC) 261 : MANU/SC/0522/2023], Peethambaran v. State of Kerala and Anr., wherein the Apex Court considered 2 questions (i) Whether under the recognised parameters of exercise of power under Section 482, in the facts of the present case, the non-exercise of power is justified? (ii) Whether the District Police Chief, Kottayam, could have ordered the further investigation pursuant to which the second final report was filed? In the said decision, after referring earlier decisions with reference to Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, the Apex Court answered the first question in the negative and answered the second question holding that the District Police Chief, Kottayam, could not have ordered further investigation.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed decisions of the Apex Court reported in [2013 (3) KLT 552], Jose Thettayil v. Station House Officer, [(2009) 4 SCC 439], Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan to buttress his contentions.
5. Whereas it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that even though at the time of registering the FIR in this crime the 6th accused/petitioner was not named as an accused, after further investigation his involvement also was made out. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, further investigation was conducted when the Investigating Officer obtained further evidence to show involvement of the petitioner also in the crime. Therefore, if at all a formal perm
Further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. does not require formal court permission to validate supplementary reports if sufficient evidence exists for inclusion of an accused.
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.
Further investigation without prior court permission is valid under Section 173(8) of CrPC, and such investigation does not violate the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constit....
The requirement of court permission for further investigation is essential and must be adhered to, as established by recent judicial interpretations.
The accused has no right to seek further investigation after a charge sheet is filed, and discrepancies in evidence are to be resolved at trial.
The right to conduct further investigations under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is statutory and does not require prior court approval, reinforcing that inquiries may extend beyond the initial report.
Constitutional guarantee under Art.21 of the Constitution of India embraces both the life and liberty of the accused and the interest of the victim as well as of the society at large and cannot be al....
The Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on a charge-sheet; further investigation rights lie with the police.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
