Further investigation in criminal proceedings is within the exclusive prerogative of the investigating agency, and accused parties cannot dictate investigation processes.

O R D E R

The present Revision has been filed as against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2 of 2025 in Crl.M.P.No.52 of 2025 in S.C.No.89 of 2024 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Ponneri thereby dismissing the petition filed under Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023 seeking further investigation.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as A.3 and A.5 in S.C.No.89 of 2024, charged for offence punishable under Sections 120 (b) r/w 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 and 201 of IPC. While pending trial, the petitioners filed an application for further investigation and the same was dismissed on the ground that no circumstances would arise to order further investigation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court mechanically dismissed the petition only on the ground that the trial had already commenced, hence no further investigation can be ordered under Section 193(9) of BNSS, 2023 and the proviso permits further investigation during the trial with the permission of the court and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days. However, the trial court failed to note the key materials such as audio recordings and other evidence, which are suppressed by the 1st respondent. The entire investigation is in-complete, biased and suppressive of the material facts, thereby hindering the court of justice. Further, the 1st respondent completely suppressed the involvement of offenders in the murder, also, there had been conversations between two groups and they had conspired to do away with the life of the deceased. That apart, the 1^st respondent attempts to prevent the actual perpetrator of the crime, therefore, it requires further investigation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1979 SCC Online SC 12 Criminal Appeal Nos.373 and 374 of 1978) [Ram Lal Narang Vs.State (Delhi Administration) and Om Prakash Narang and Another Vs. State (Delhi Administration)] wherein in Paragraph No.15, among other things, it is held as follows:

"15. .........Oridinarily, the right and duty of the police would end with the submission of a report under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C., upon receipt of which it was up to the Magistrate to take or not to take cognizance of the offence. There was no provision in the 1898 Code prescribing the procedure to be followed by the police, where, after the submission of a report under Section 173(1) Cr.P.C., and after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, fresh facts came to light which required further investigation. There was, of course, no express provision prohibiting the police from launching upon an investigation into the fresh facts coming to light after the submission of the report under Section 173(1) or after the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence. As we shall presently point out, it was generally thought by many High Courts, though doubted by a few, that the police were not bared from further investigation by the circumstance that a report under Section 173(1) had already been submitted and a Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence..."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the Judgment reported in (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 743 [ Pooja Pal Vs. Union of India and Others ], wherein at Paragraph no.86, it is averred as follows:-

"A trial encompasses investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial i.e., the entire range of scrutiny including crime detection and adjudication on the basis thereof. Jurisdprudentially, the guarantee under Article 21 embraces both the life and liberty of the accused as well as interest of the victim, his near and dear ones as well