Lack of Formal Permission Alone Does Not Invalidate Supplementary Police Report, Rules Kerala High Court

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that the mere absence of formal court permission for conducting further investigation does not automatically render a supplementary final report filed by the police "non-est" or invalid, provided the investigation is based on further evidence. The court emphasized that while obtaining permission is a desirable practice, and now statutorily recognized in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), its omission does not vitiate the process if new evidence is found.

The ruling was delivered by Justice A. BADHARUDEEN in a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.MC 7975/2024) filed by an accused, Asha , seeking to quash proceedings against her in a case (SC No. 273/2024) pending before the 5th Additional District & Sessions Court, Ernakulam, arising from Crime No. 49/2020 of Kannamaly Police Station.

Case Background

The petitioner, Asha , was arrayed as the 6th accused in the case, which involves offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 447, 323, 341, 324, 325, 326, and 307, read with Section 34. The original First Information Report (FIR) named only accused Nos. 1 to 5, alleging offences committed on February 22, 2020. It was alleged that the first accused caused a stab injury, the second accused used a bamboo stick and also caused stab injury to the victim's wife, and others caused injuries to the victim's brother.

Subsequently, a further investigation was conducted, which led to the inclusion of the petitioner as the 6th accused. A supplementary final report was filed based on this investigation.

Petitioner's Contentions

The petitioner argued that her inclusion as the 6th accused was baseless. Her counsel submitted that she was implicated primarily because she had filed a counter-complaint alleging an attack against her by the defacto complainant and others from the present case, leading to the registration of a separate crime (Crime No. 76/2020).

Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the further investigation leading to her inclusion was conducted without obtaining the requisite permission from the court. Citing precedents like Peethambaran v. State of Kerala and others, the petitioner argued that a supplementary report filed without court permission is non-est and liable to be quashed.

Prosecution's Stand

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner's involvement was discovered during the further investigation when the Investigating Officer obtained additional evidence. It was contended that while formal permission might not have been obtained, this fact alone would not invalidate the further investigation or the report filed based on it.

Legal Analysis by the Court

The High Court framed two key questions for consideration: 1. Whether further investigation conducted without formal court permission renders the supplementary report non-est. 2. Whether the petitioner's inclusion as the 6th accused was without supporting materials.

Regarding the first question, the court acknowledged the position under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (and the corresponding Section 193(9) of BNSS, which makes permission during trial mandatory) that police can conduct further investigation upon obtaining further evidence. Reviewing several Apex Court decisions, including Sri Bhagwan Samardha SreepadaVallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj , Vinay Tyagi , Devendra Nath Singh , Peethambaran , and the recent decision in State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy , the court noted the consistent view that police have the power to conduct further investigation even after the initial report is filed and accepted.

The court observed that while many decisions emphasize the desirability and need for police to inform the court and seek formal permission for further investigation, especially to maintain comity between the court and the agency, no binding precedent has held that the absence of such formal permission alone makes the supplementary report non-est. The court highlighted the summary in Hemendhra Reddy which reiterated that further investigation is permissible under Section 173(8) CrPC and is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation.

The court concluded that as per Section 173(8) CrPC, further investigation can be conducted upon obtaining further evidence, and the statutory provision does not make obtaining permission mandatory for the investigation itself. While obtaining permission is recognized in law and should be the practice, the court ruled that failure to seek permission before conducting further investigation and filing a report thereof does not make the report non-est for that reason alone.

On the second question concerning the basis for the petitioner's inclusion, the court examined the materials from the further investigation. It noted that the statements of witnesses Nos. 18 and 21, recorded during the further investigation, contained allegations of the petitioner's involvement in the crime, specifically stating that she held the hair of the defacto complainant's wife and hit her head on the wall. The court also found the petitioner's presence at the scene was corroborated by the existence of the counter-case.

Court's Decision

Based on the evidence gathered during the further investigation, which included witness statements implicating the petitioner, the court found that her inclusion as the 6th accused was supported by necessary materials. The court held that at this stage, after cognizance had been taken by the trial court based on both the initial and supplementary reports, it could not be concluded that the petitioner was innocent or that her impleadment was without materials or in violation of law.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition, finding no merit in the grounds raised for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.