The main legal point established in the judgment is that further investigation is a statutory right of the police under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, and formal permission from the Court is required if the conditions of the provision are satisfied.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 7.2.2020 made in Crl.M.P.No.3705 of 2019 in C.C.No.463 of 2015 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and order reinvestigation/further investigation in C.C.No.463 of 2015 on the file of the said Court in Crime No.515 of 2014 on the file of E-2 Royapettah Police Station, Chennai by a Superior Officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police.)

1. This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 07.02.2020 made in Crl.M.P.No.3705 of 2019 in C.C.No.463 of 2015 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, whereby dismissed the petition filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C to permit the Investigation Officer to conduct further investigation in Crime No.515 of 2014.

2. The defacto complainant lodged complaint and on receipt of the same, the petitioner registered FIR in Crime No.515 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 451, 380 and 506(i) of IPC as against the accused persons. After completion of investigation in Crime No.515 of 2014, the petitioner filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.463 of 2015 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. When the matter was pending for Trial, the defacto complainant gave a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Royapettah, stating that certain documents have been stolen by the accused from the Trust Office and requested for further investigation. While the said request was under consideration, the defacto complainant approached this Court for further investigation in Crl.O.P.No.3052 of 2016. This Court dismissed the petition as infructuous and observed that it is open to the Investigation Officer to approach the learned Magistrate Court by filing an appropriate application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, seeking permission for further investigation. Therefore, the petitioner is being the Investigation Officer filed a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, seeking permission for further investigation. The Trial Court dismissed the petition for seeking further investigation and aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the Investigation Officer can lay all the fresh evidence which is even available after filing the final report to substantiate the charge made against the accused persons. At any time in the course of Trial, when further evidence is available, the investigation agency should be afforded an opportunity to unearth the same and place it before the Trial Court. The details of the documents which were stolen and the names of the key witnesses not examined by the Investigation Officer have already furnished by the defacto complainant by his representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and also the Assistant Commissioner of Police which cannot be revealed to the accused as it will tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation. He also pointed out that when the defacto complainant filed petition seeking further investigation in which this Court held that, it is clear that as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, further investigation can be ordered only on the request of the Investigation Officer. Further, the investigation cannot be asked by the defacto complainant. But in that case, admittedly, the defacto complainant has not filed any application before the Magistrate Court to give direction to the Investigation Officer for further investigation. However, this Court had given liberty to the Investigation Officer to approach the Trial Court seeking permission for investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Investigation Officer rightly approached the Trial Court and however, the Trial Court without considering the above aspect, dismissed the petition for the reason that the Investigation Officer represented befor