The law dictates that both initial and supplementary reports should be considered before proceeding with criminal charges after further investigation.

ORDER

The accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1652/2014 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the proceedings against them in the aforesaid case. The learned Magistrate initiated the proceedings against the petitioners in connection with the commission of offences under Sections 452 , 506(ii), 323, 324, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, and Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act , on the basis of the Final Report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Poojapura, which was taken on to files on 05.06.2014. However, the Investigating Officer had conducted a further investigation in that matter pursuant to the direction of the Inspector General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram Range, in the order No.B3/5869/2014/TR. Thereafter, the Investigating Agency filed Annexure A3 further report with a finding that the case arose out of mistake of facts.

2. The defacto complainant had filed a protest complaint against the aforesaid findings of the Investigating Agency in the refer report filed before the learned Magistrate. As per order dated 05.11.2019, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvanathapuram, dismissed the protest complaint relying on the decision rendered by this Court in Joseph and Others v. Antony Joseph and Another [ 2018 (3) KHC 23 ] wherein it was held that, if a further investigation has been conducted after the filing of a charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., and a refer report is filed, the law does not permit the defacto complainant to file a protest complaint against such supplementary report.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. By relying on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Luckose Zachariah alias Zak Nedumchira Luke v. Joseph Joseph and Others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 241], the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the findings of the learned Magistrate in the order passed on 05.11.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.4611/2017 is erroneous. It is further pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred the decision rendered by this Court in Joseph (supra) and disapproved the findings thereunder. The learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar V.

State of U.P. [ 2026 KHC OnLine 6095 ], it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to get formal permission of the Trial Court before proceeding with the further investigation, in a case where the Trial Court had already taken cognizance of the offence in the earlier Final Report filed by the Investigating Agency.

5. In the light of the aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, a report was called for from the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, as to whether there was any formal permission accorded by the said Court to proceed with the further investigation in that crime. As per the report dated 24.02.2026, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, has stated that the Investigating Officer had filed an application seeking formal sanction for further investigation, and that the aforesaid application was allowed on 16.09.2014. Thus, it is apparent that there had been no violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar (supra).

6. The law is now trite with the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Luckose Zachariah (supra) which followed Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak [ (2013) 5 SCC 762 ] that in a case where a supplementary report under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C has been filed