Supplementary charge sheets can be filed without prior court permission under Section 173(8) CrPC, reinforcing the court's authority and the need for clean hands in seeking judicial relief.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State, learned special counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. Petition No. 3570/2013 under S.482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.07.2013 by which the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and has been summoned to face the trial. Further prayer has been made to quash the charge - sheet dated 10.07.2013 in Case Crime No.11 of 2013.
Second petition No. 669/2014 under S.482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 27.01.2014, passed in Criminal Case No. 16/2013 State v. Nawal Kishore and also to quash the impugned supplementary charge - sheet No. 4 - B / 2014 dated 22.01.2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 11/2013, under S.409, S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.120 - B IPC and S.7/13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.
It has further been prayed that the court below be directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the same bail bonds or fresh bail bonds in respect of added S.203 IPC and S.13(1)(e) of the , 1988.

3. In the present matter, the report was lodged on 11.01.2013 in view of the findings of the disciplinary proceedings, in which it was alleged that since 02.02.2010 to 31.03.2012, the petitioner had committed forgery and also prepared false and fabricated documents by which there was financial loss to the Bank. It was also alleged that the petitioner was involved in the corrupt practices and he had misused his post and power. After the investigation, the charge - sheet was filed against the petitioner and the trial court has enlarged him on bail by order dated 21.01.2014. After the said bail order, supplementary charge - sheet has been filed against the petitioner under S.203 IPC and S.7/13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , upon which, the trial court has taken cognizance on 27.01.2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when the cognizance had already been taken previously, the supplementary charge - sheet could not have been filed without the permission of the court and the court was not competent to take cognizance on the supplementary charge - sheet. It has also been submitted that since the petitioner has been granted bail in the grave offences then the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in the added Section also. It has also been submitted that the permission of the court has not been sought under S.178 CrPC, therefore, the submission of supplementary charge - sheet is against the provisions of law.

5. Learned AGA has defended the impugned order and has submitted that the Code had defined the word "cognizance" and the proceedings are continuing, therefore, it cannot be said that the cognizance has been taken for the second time. It has also been submitted that under the provisions of S.173(8) CrPC, the permission of court is not required. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has not come with the clean hands and has concealed various material facts from the court including the fact that after the order dated 29.08.2013, he had not surrendered before the Court and the matter was agitated before Hon'ble the Apex Court by way of SLP and Hon'ble the Apex Court has set aside the direction to the effect that no coercive action shall be taken. It has also been submitted that after the grant of bail on 21.01.2014, the petitioner is still absconding and is not cooperating with the trial, therefore, he is not entitled for any d