Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Competent Persons to File Reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - The law permits various authorities, including police officers, to conduct further investigations even after submitting a final report (charge-sheet) under Section 173(2). The scope of Section 173(8) allows the police to carry out additional investigation if new evidence emerges, and this power is not revoked by the filing of the initial final report ["Smt. Rashmi Sundrani vs State of U.P. and Another - Allahabad"], ["STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS HEMENDHRA REDDY - Supreme Court"], ["Sanjay Kumar Pundeer VS State of NCT of Delhi - Delhi"], ["Johnson, S/o S. Garibel VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Tvm v. K. Sasikala and Others - Kerala"], ["K. Krishnan VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
Police Officers and Investigating Authorities - The police officer or investigating authority, such as the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the CID Inspector, is competent to file both the initial report and subsequent supplementary reports under Section 173(8). The law emphasizes that the power to further investigate remains with the investigating officer, and permission from the court is not mandatory for conducting further investigation ["Sharif Ahmed VS State Of Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court"], ["Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Tvm v. K. Sasikala and Others - Kerala"], ["K. Krishnan VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
Scope and Nature of Further Investigation - Section 173(8) explicitly provides for further investigation after the submission of the final report, which can include gathering additional evidence, re-examining witnesses, or implicating new accused persons. This process is distinct from initial investigation and does not require prior court approval, but the court must consider all reports before framing charges or proceeding further ["B. L. WADEHRA VS UNION OF INDIA - Supreme Court"], ["Johnson, S/o S. Garibel VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["Smt. Rashmi Sundrani vs State of U.P. and Another - Allahabad"].
Judicial Consideration of Multiple Reports - Courts are required to consider both the initial report under Section 173(2) and any supplementary reports under Section 173(8) to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with trial. The submission of a supplementary report does not preclude the court from taking cognizance or proceeding with further investigation ["Johnson, S/o S. Garibel VS State Of Kerala - Kerala"], ["Ramu S. v. State of A.P. - Andhra Pradesh"].
Main Point and Insight - The law clearly authorizes multiple authorities, including police officers of different ranks and specialized units like CID, to file reports and conduct additional investigations under Section 173(8) even after the initial final report. This ensures flexibility and thoroughness in criminal investigations, and the process does not necessitate court approval for further investigation, though judicial review remains essential before trial ["B. L. WADEHRA VS UNION OF INDIA - Supreme Court"], ["Satish Kumar VS State - Delhi"], ["K. Krishnan VS State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor - Kerala"].
Conclusion: Persons competent to file reports under Section 173(8) include police officers, CID officials, and other investigating authorities. They can conduct further investigations after submitting a final report under Section 173(2), and this power is independent of court permission, provided the reports are submitted for judicial consideration before charges are framed or proceedings initiated.
In the intricate world of criminal investigations in India, Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, plays a pivotal role. After submitting an initial final report under Section 173(2), further probes may uncover new evidence, necessitating supplementary reports under Section 173(8). But a critical question arises: persons competent to file report under 173(8)? This blog post delves into this issue, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial interpretations to provide clarity.
Understanding who holds the authority is essential for ensuring procedural validity and upholding justice. Typically, only designated law enforcement officers can exercise this power, preventing misuse. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 173(8) empowers the police to conduct further investigation even after forwarding a final report under Section 173(2) to the Magistrate. This provision accommodates evolving evidence, such as delayed chemical reports or new witness statements. As noted in key documents, Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code has contemplated a situation where the police can undertake further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under subsection (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted with the learned Magistrate. AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL VS SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL - 2017 5 Supreme 11
This flexibility ensures comprehensive justice but is strictly limited to authorized personnel. Courts have emphasized that prior Magistrate permission is not mandatory for such further probes, distinguishing it from re-investigation. Gurdeep Singh VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 Supreme(UK) 661
The authority to file these supplementary reports hinges on statutory designation and official rank. Generally, the following are competent:
These officers must adhere to prescribed formats, including details on parties, offenses, arrests, and evidence. Non-compliance can lead to judicial scrutiny. Dablu Kujur VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 3 Supreme 18
The CrPC delineates clear roles. The officer in charge is in categorical terms, has been empowered thereby to conduct further investigation and to lay a supplementary report or reports regarding such evidence... AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL VS SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL - 2017 5 Supreme 11
In cases involving specialized probes, like those under the Arms Act or IPC offenses, Inspectors of CID or superiors perform these duties. Corporation Of Calcutta VS Md. Omer Ali - 1976 0 Supreme(SC) 292
Judicial precedents reinforce this. The right of the investigating officer to seek further investigation under 173(8) persists post-charge-sheet filing, provided the court has taken cognizance. It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof... State of Maharashtra vs Mangesh Pandurang Kadam - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1437
Police reports under Section 173(2) are foundational, and supplementary ones must mirror this rigor. Courts direct strict compliance: Officer in charge of police stations in every State shall strictly comply with afore-stated directions, and non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by concerned courts... Dablu Kujur VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 3 Supreme 18
Further, Magistrates may order additional probes, but the filing remains with competent police officers. Panna Lal VS State Of Haryana - 2006 Supreme(P&H) 2182
In multi-accused scenarios or delayed evidence (e.g., chemical reports), authorized officers file supplements without vitiating proceedings. However, unauthorized filings, like by non-designated inspectors, render reports invalid. When final report is filed without there being any authority, it is not a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code and the Court cannot take cognizance... M. G. Gopal Principal & Dean of KIMS S/o late M. G. Govindaiah VS State by Central Police, CCB (F and M Division) - 2021 Supreme(Kar) 22
Not everyone can invoke Section 173(8). Key restrictions include:- Private Individuals: Lacking official status, they have no competence.- Unauthorized Officers: Even police personnel without designation or rank fail. Competence depends on the officer's official designation and authorization under law or government notification. AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL VS SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL - 2017 5 Supreme 11Corporation Of Calcutta VS Md. Omer Ali - 1976 0 Supreme(SC) 292- Post-Cognizance Limits: While further investigation is allowed, it must not circumvent rights like default bail. State of Maharashtra vs Mangesh Pandurang Kadam - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1437
Courts quash proceedings if reports stem from incompetent sources, emphasizing jurisdiction. Pawan Shastri, S/o. Late Sh. Baldev Dass VS UT of J&K through Senior Superintendent of Police, Anticorruption Bureau, Jammu - 2024 Supreme(J&K) 35
For investigators:- Verify authorization via government notifications or statutes.- Document compliance with Section 173 requirements (e.g., witness statements, medical reports). Dablu Kujur VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 3 Supreme 18
Magistrates typically accept valid supplements, take cognizance, or direct more probes. In one ruling, challenges to supplementary charge-sheets adding offenses like Section 149 IPC were dismissed, affirming no prior permission needed for further investigation. Gurdeep Singh VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 Supreme(UK) 661
Authorities should train officers on these nuances to avoid procedural lapses, as non-compliance invites strict judicial view. Dablu Kujur VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 3 Supreme 18
While police lead, courts retain oversight. Magistrates can order further inquiry post-closure reports. Panna Lal VS State Of Haryana - 2006 Supreme(P&H) 2182 In quashing contexts, excessive directions for re-investigation are critiqued. Pawan Shastri, S/o. Late Sh. Baldev Dass VS UT of J&K through Senior Superintendent of Police, Anticorruption Bureau, Jammu - 2024 Supreme(J&K) 35
Delays or incomplete probes impact bail rights, underscoring timely, authorized filings. Amrit Kumari VS State Of J&K - 2010 Supreme(J&K) 407
In summary, Section 173(8) balances investigative needs with accountability, vesting power in duly empowered officers. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References:1. Competition Commission Of India VS Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1759: Officer in charge forwards further reports.2. AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL VS SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL - 2017 5 Supreme 11: Police empowered for supplements post-charge-sheet.3. Corporation Of Calcutta VS Md. Omer Ali - 1976 0 Supreme(SC) 292: Superiors and designated officers competent.4. State of Maharashtra vs Mangesh Pandurang Kadam - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1437, Dablu Kujur VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 3 Supreme 18, Gurdeep Singh VS State of Uttarakhand - 2023 Supreme(UK) 661, and others as cited.
#CrPC1738, #FurtherInvestigation, #IndianCriminalLaw
... 8. So far as PWD is concerned, none is present from the Department but Mr N.N. ... Goswami, learned counsel for NCT, Delhi Administration has assisted us in this matter. ... The list of the persons who were to be appointed as Magistrates was finalized on 30-101996. Almostmonth after the order was passed by this Court in the presence of the Chief Secretary,letter was written on 30-10-1996 to theHigh Court to initiate the process of consultation. ... Manager, Northern Railway; General Manager, MTNL; Chief Engineer,CPWD; Secretary, Urban Development, NCT....
On the basis of the aforesaid report of the Law Commission, in the Code (Cr.P.C. 1973), the aforesaid report was implemented and Section 173 (8), was introduced, which provides as under: "173(8). ... It is settled position of law the Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Agency in its report under Section 173 (2) or 173(8). ... Among the other sub-sections, we are very much concerned about sub- section (8) of Sectio....
It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. ... Once from the material produced along with the charge- sheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pendin....
(8) is pending or not. ... Cr.P.C. that can form the basis for the competent court for taking cognizance thereupon. ... The issues with regard to the compliance of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. may also arise, when the investigating officer submits Police Report only qua some of the persons-accused named in the FIR, keeping open the investigation qua the other persons-accused, or when all the documents as required under Section ... 173(5) are not submitted. ... 8. As per Se....
under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. ... as per section 173(8) of the said code. ... (ii) Under 173(8) of the CrPC, a police officer can carry on further investigation even after a report under Section 173(2) of the CrPC is submitted, in view of Section 173(8) of the CrPC and held in Vinay Tyagi v. ... The third option is the one adumbrated in Section 173(8) of the Code. … 16. ... The language o....
CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770, explained the scope of Section 167(2) vis-`a-vis Section 173(8) of the CrPC and held as under: "19. A charge-sheet is a final report within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. ... Hence, report of the FSL if received on a subsequent stage would be covered under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. 25. ... Such a right does not revive only because a further investigation remains pending within the meaning of sub-section (8) of Secti....
The integration of Sub-Section 8 is axiomatically subsequent to the 41st Report of the Law Commission Report of India conveying its recommendation that after the submission of a final report Under Section 173, a competent police officer, in the event of availability of evidence bearing on the guilt or ... This assumes significance, having regard to the language consciously applied to design Section 173(8) in the 1973 Code. ... From a plain reading of Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (8)....
As such Final Report (Ikhtatami) of the case u/s 173 Cr.PC is hereby submitted for favour of kind perusal and further orders..” , 2023 SCC Online SC 515 , the Supreme Court observed that nothing bars the conduct of further investigation into a matter under Section 173 (8) after the submission of the final report under Section 173 (2) that the court ... were attested in favour of Anant Ram son of Divya, well before Section 28 A got engrafted in the Act in the year 1989 and as Anant Ram got proprietary rights under the Act....
The further investigation under sub-Section 8 of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure supplements the charge sheet already filed and is not to be confused with the report of the investigation contemplated by sub-Section 2 of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ... The decision highlights that sub-Section 8 of the Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with further investigation and would be of a kind of a previous investigation being continued. ... CBI, (2007....
as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of S.173(8). ... Now the question arises for consideration is, what is the procedure to be followed by the Court when report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. (final report) and a supplementary report under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. were produced?. ... The legal position is not in dispute that when an initial report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and a supplementary report filed thereafte....
It is his further submission that the Magistrate if peruses the statement of the witnesses and passes the order, it is subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate and the same cannot be held that he has not applied his mind. It is his further submission that the person who investigates the complaint is also competent to file the report under Section 173(2) of the Code. It is his further submission that under Section 2(s) of the Code, any post or a place declared by the State Government has to be considered as a police station and as per Section 2(o) of the Code, in the absenc....
Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter and the magistrate may take cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. Scheme for inquiry/trial provided under the Cr.P.C. is quite clear. After investigation, report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is to be submitted before the competent court i.e. However, it is still open to the magistrate to direct further investigation under the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The occurrence had allegedly taken place on 20.01.2008 and the accused were arrested on 17.02.2008. One more bail application was filed by the accused-persons on 15.03.2008, which was also rejected on 10.05.2008. The bail application was initially filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajouri on 03.03.2008, which was rejected on 10.03.2008.
The Magistrate was held competent under Section 173(8) to order further investigation. However, even in that case the police had already submitted the closure report and the same had been accepted by the Magistrate.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, without ordering even notice to other side, it seems, allowed that petition, permitting the investigating officer to reopen the case and proceed further. The order available does not say that the investigating officer is permitted to conduct further investigation, as contemplated under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 4. The respondent/complainant thereafter, appears to have filed a petition under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., for 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
