PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ORS.

                 [2026] 2 S.C.R. 481 : 2026 INSC 120

                         Pramod Kumar & Ors.
                                    v.
                       State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 2026)
                               04 February 2026
               [Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether after submitting a final report u/s.173(2) of the Code
       of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (s.193(3) of the Bharatiya
       Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)), the police/investigating
       agency can conduct further investigation u/s.173(8) of CrPC
       (s.193(9) of BNSS) without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/
       Court concerned.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173(2), s.173(8) – Bharatiya
       Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.193(3), s.193(9) – An FIR
       was registered against seven accused persons including
       appellants for the offence punishable u/ss.376D, 352, 504, 506
       respectively of the IPC – After completion of the investigation,
       the Investigating Officer submitted the Final Report (closure
       report) stating that no offence was made out against the
       accused persons, including the appellants herein – The
       Court of First Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate
       after considering the Closure Report, accepted the same –
       After few years, a complaint was filed before NHRC alleging
       several deficiencies in the investigation conducted by police
       officials – The Under Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
       forwarded the matter to CBCID directing investigation and
       recommended further investigation u/s.173(8) of CrPC – The
       Superintendent of Police, directed IO to make available the
       special report relating to the further investigation – Notice
       issued to accused persons – Writ Petition – The High Court,
       inter-alia, directed continuation of investigation and dismissed
       the petition – Correctness:
       Held: In light of the legal position as settled by this Court through
       the various judgments, it is safe to say that the power to direct
* Author
482                                                             [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the
       Magistrate/Court concerned – In the event, the police/ investigating
       agency is of the opinion that further investigation is necessary
       in any particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in the
       case, it is binding upon them to file an appropriate application
       before the Magistrate/Court, without directing an order for further
       investigation by themselves – Once such an application is filed
       by the investigating agency, the Magistrate/Court would apply
       its judicial mind, in light of the facts and circumstances of the
       particular case and the reasons demonstrated by the investigating
       agency, in order to exercise its discretion for exercise of its power
       to decide whether or not further investigation is to be ordered
       under the purview of s.173(8) of CrPC – Thus, it is amply clear
       that the Superintendent of Police acted in complete defiance of the
       procedure laid down under the law while passing orders directing
       further investigation without seeking leave of the Court – The
       impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside – In
       addition to that, the communication dated 06.06.2019 and order
       dated 26.04.2021 passed directing further investigation, are also
       quashed and set aside. [Paras 33, 36, 38]

                                Case Law Cited
       Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Ors. [2012] 13 SCR
       1005 : (2013) 5 SCC 762; Peethambaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.
       [2023] 4 SCR 1144 : (2024) 16 SCC 65 – relied on.
       Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and Ors. [2016] 1 SCR 194 :
       (2016) 4 SCC 160 – held inapplicable.
       Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police [1985] 3 SCR 942 : (1985)
       2 SCC 537; Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Others v. State of
       Gujarat and Another [2019] SCR 936 : (2019) 17 SCC 1; Devendra
       Nath Singh v. State of Bihar [2023] 15 SCR 692 : (2023) 1 SCC
       48 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
       Sanhita, 2023.

                               List of Keywords
       Investigation; Further investigation; Investigating agency; Section
       173(8) of CrPC; Section 193(9) of BNSS; Final Report; Closure
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                             483

          Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.


     Report; Discretion of the Magistrate/Court; Superintendent of Police;
     Direct fresh/de novo/reinvestigation; Transfer of the investigation;
     Court of law; Judicial mind; Power to direct further investigation;
     Leave of Court/Magistrate.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     687 of 2026
     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.2023 of the High
     Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in CRLMWP
     No. 4000 of 2022

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Divyesh Pratap Singh, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Amit Sangwan, Bharat
     Mishra, Tiwari Prashantipriya Awadesh, Suraj Prakash Singh.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Apoorva Agrawal, A.A.G., Abhisehk Kumar Singh, Sarvesh Singh
     Baghel.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Vijay Bishnoi, J.

     Leave Granted.
2.   This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants challenging the
     order dated 20.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned
     judgment”) passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4000 of
     2022 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
     (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”). The writ petition filed
     by the Appellants was dismissed by the High Court, wherein the
     High Court refused to quash a communication dated 06.06.2019,
     issued by Under Secretary to the State of U.P. to the Director, Crime
     Branch, Crime Investigation Department, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
     (Respondent No. 1 herein) and order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the
     Superintendent of Police, Agra, Crime Branch, AAD, Uttar Pradesh
     Lucknow (Respondent No. 4 herein).
484                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


3.     The sole question arises for our consideration in the present appeal
       is whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) of the
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) (also refer to
       Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for
       short “BNSS”), the police/investigating agency can conduct further
       investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC (also refer to Section
       193(9) of BNSS) without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/ Court
       concerned?

       FACTUAL MATRIX
4.     A fascicule of facts pertinent for the disposal of this appeal are that,
       on 19.11.2013, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 70/2013 (hereinafter
       referred to as “the FIR”) was registered against seven accused
       persons including the Appellants herein by Saroj Kumar - Respondent
       No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as “the original complainant”) for the
       offence punishable under Sections 376D, 352, 504, 506 respectively
       of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) at Mahila Police
       Station, Sub-district Sadar, District Firozabad.
5.     During investigation, owing to multiple applications moved by the
       original complainant alleging danger to his life and his family members’
       lives, the investigation was initially transferred from the Mahila Police
       Station to the Crime Branch, Firozabad, and subsequently to the
       Crime Branch, Mathura.
6.     After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
       submitted the Final Report No.17/14 dated 30.05.2014 (hereinafter
       referred to as “the Closure Report”), stating that no offence was
       made out against the accused persons, including the Appellants
       herein, in light of the contradictions between the statements of the
       original complainant under Section 161 and 164 of the CrPC. The
       relevant extract of the closure report is reproduced herein under:
            “On the basis of information of the informant, the aforesaid
            case was registered and investigation was undertaken.
            There is contradiction between the statements U/s. 161
            and 164 Cr.P.C. of the informant. There is enmity/litigation
            pending between the informant and the accused persons.
            The statements of the informant are not supported by
            other evidences. Hence, the offence is not confirmed. In
            absence of evidences, it is impossible to file challan against
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                              485

          Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.


           the accused persons before the Court. Hence, the case
           is closed by FR. Kindly approve it”
7.   After receiving the Closure Report, the Court of First Additional Civil
     Judge, (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, issued several notices
     to the original complainant. However, despite the service of notices,
     neither he appeared before the Court, nor he filed any protest petition
     against the Closure Report. The Court of First Additional Civil Judge,
     (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad​​, after considering the Closure
     Report, has accepted the same vide order dated 14.09.2015, noting
     that the material on record did not support the prosecution’s case.
     The relevant extract of the order is reproduced herein under:
           “The case file was presented today. Notice has been sent
           to the informant several times. Despite the notice has been
           duly served to the informant several times, he had not
           filed any objection/protest petition against the final report.
           It is clear from the case diary and police documents and
           evidences available in the file that the statements u/s 161
           CrPC and statements u/s 164 CrPC of the informant and
           the person with whom the victim had gone to the bridge
           on a motorcycle to search for her brothers, it has been
           confirmed from her statements/affidavit, that neither the
           victim met that day nor she was taken to the bridge on
           a motorcycle and none of the statements of witnesses
           recorded by the IO have confirmed the incident. Even
           perusal of the medical report does not confirm any kind
           of external or internal injury and the statements made by
           the victim are also not confirmed by the medical report.
           Thus, according to the medical report, no clear inference
           can be made that the victim was raped.
           It is also clear from the perusal of the file that the informant
           had requested for the investigation of the said case, apart
           by the local police, shall be conducted by the Crime Branch,
           on which the case was investigated by the Crime Branch,
           Mathura. The investigation was carried out by several
           Investigating Officers of Crime Branch, Mathura and after
           the investigation, the mobile phones of the accused were
           matched through cell track by Mr. Narendra Singh, and the
           location of any of the accused persons was not found at the
           spot at the time of the incident, which has been recorded
486                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            in the case diary by the IO and any of the witness had
            not confirmed the statement of the victim, on the basis
            of which the final report in the case No. 17/14 dated 30-
            5-14 has been submitted by the IO on 30.05.2014 which
            prima facie appears to be legal. Therefore, in compliance
            of Hon’ble High Court’s circular no. 31/2012 Admin, G.
            II, Allahabad dated 11-12-2012 and Hon’ble High Court
            Allahabad’s criminal miscellaneous petition no. 2520/2012
            Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. State of UP and others u/s
            482/378/507 order passed in S.P. No. dated 27-7-2012
            and circular letter no. of Honorable High Court Allahabad
            no. 10435 date 03.09.2014 and letter no. 420/2015 dated
            17.01.2015, the final report no. 17/14 is accepted. It should
            be attached in the file.”
8.     Subsequently, after a span of about 3 years, the original complainant
       filed a Criminal Revision Petition (later registered as Criminal
       Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2017) before the Court of District
       and Sessions Judge, Firozabad, for setting aside the aforesaid
       order dated 14.09.2015, wherein the Closure Report was accepted.
       The said case is presently pending before the Court of District and
       Sessions Judge, Firozabad.
9.     Thereafter, one Dr. Ashu Kumar filed a complaint before the National
       Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as “NHRC”)
       alleging several deficiencies in the investigation conducted by police
       officials. The Assistant Registrar (Law) of the NHRC after considering
       the said complaint, passed an order dated 06.03.2019, citing several
       discrepancies in the investigation done by investigating agency and,
       consequently, directed the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh
       (hereinafter referred to as “the DGP”) to conduct a fact finding enquiry
       into the conduct of officials of Police Station Ekka, Police Station
       Narkhi, by an officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of
       Police and submit a report regarding the same within a period of 6
       weeks. The NHRC further directed the Chief Secretary to pay an
       amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to the prosecutrix and Rs. 1 lakh each to
       the original complainant as well as the father of the prosecutrix and
       submit a compliance report within 6 weeks.
10. In compliance thereof, the Under Secretary, Government of Uttar
    Pradesh, forwarded a communication dated 06.06.2019 to the
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                        487

          Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.


     Director, Crime Branch, Crime Investigation Department, Uttar
     Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “CBCID”), informing that in
     pursuance to the directions of the NHRC, it had been decided that
     the matter should be investigated by CBCID, and further directing it
     to complete the investigation within a period of 6 weeks and submit
     a final progress report.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the Under Secretary, Government of Uttar
    Pradesh vide letter dated 12.02.2021, informed the NHRC that an
    investigation pursuant to the conduct of the officers involved in
    the present case is underway. Further, it was also informed that in
    order to reveal the truth of the accusations involved in the case, it is
    recommended that further investigation under Section 173(8) should
    be conducted in FIR No. 70/2013.
12. With the approval of the Director General of Police, CBCID, an
    Inspector of CBCID (hereinafter referred to as “IO”) was nominated
    for carrying out further investigation of the present case under
    Section 173(8) of the CrPC and pursuantly, the newly appointed
    IO filed an application dated 22.04.2021 before the Court of First
    Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, seeking
    permission to conduct further investigation in the instant case under
    Section 173(8) of the CrPC.
13. Thereafter, vide communication dated 26.04.2021, the Superintendent
    of Police, Agra informed the Additional Superintendent of Police/
    Divisional Officer, Crime Branch, A.A.D., Agra, about the nomination
    of the IO in the present case and also directed him to make available
    the special report relating to the further investigation (in 10 days),
    the draft of the plan (in 20 days) and the monthly progress report in
    the prescribed formats to the headquarters on time and complete
    the investigation as soon as possible and send the final progress
    to the headquarters.
14. In furtherance of the said investigation, the IO sent a notice to the
    accused persons, including the Appellants, for the collection of their
    blood samples to conduct a DNA test and their blood samples were
    collected.
15. Consequently, the Appellants filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
    4000 of 2022 before the High Court challenging the communication
    dated 06.06.2019 and order dated 26.04.2021.
488                                                       [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


16. The High Court, vide order dated 23.06.2022, initially granted interim
    protection from arrest to the Appellants. However, in the same order,
    it was directed that the investigation shall continue and that the
    Appellants shall cooperate with the investigation.
17. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Director, Forensic
    Science Laboratory, State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted the DNA
    Test Report dated 21.09.2022 stating that the accused persons,
    including the Appellants, were not the biological father of the fetus
    of the prosecutrix.
18. Later, the High Court vide the impugned judgment, observed that
    the allegations of rape were made against several accused, and
    the prosecutrix also filed a protest petition against the final report
    submitted by the Investigating Officer. The DNA sample of the
    aborted fetus (resulting from the pregnancy from the alleged rape)
    was also preserved, and the Investigating Officer had written to the
    Court praying that a DNA test be carried out to ascertain who was
    involved, amongst the several accused, in the commission of rape.
    The High Court, thus, held that it found no good grounds to entertain
    the petition and dismissed the same.
19. Aggrieved, the Appellants preferred the instant appeal before this
    Court. During the pendency of the appeal, this Court vide order
    dated 16.01.2024, issued notice and stayed the operation of the
    communication dated 06.06.2019 and order dated 26.04.2021, and
    also the investigation in the present case. The relevant portion of
    order dated 16.01.2024 of this Court is reproduced herein under:
          “Applications seeking exemption from filing C/C of the
          impugned judgment and exemption from filing O.T. are
          allowed.
          Issue notice.
          In the meantime, operation and effect of the communications
          dated 06.6.2019 and 26.4.2021 directing investigation in
          Case Crime no.70/13 U/s. 376D, 352, 504, 506 IPC
          registered at PS Mahila Police Station, District Firozabad
          shall remain stayed.”
20. Pursuant to the order dated 16.01.2024, notices were issued and were
    served to all Respondents except Respondent No. 7. Respondent
    No. 6 did not appear before this Court even after notice was served
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           489

          Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.


     to him on 30.01.2024. Further, notice could not be served upon
     Respondent No. 7 and therefore, a report from the Trial Court was
     called upon wherein it was mentioned that the notice was unserved
     with remarks “no such person found”. During the pendency of the
     appeal, the appellant submitted that an application would be filed to
     delete the name of Respondent No. 7 from the array of parties. The
     relevant portion of the order dated 30.09.2024 is reproduced below:
           “Service is complete on respondent nos. 1 to 6 but none
           has entered appearance.
           As per report of concerned Trial Court, notice could not be
           served on respondent no.7 due to remarks “no such person
           found”. However, ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that
           an application for deletion of the name of respondent no.7
           from the array of parties will be filed. Be filed within one
           week. If filed, process as per rules. However, if application
           is not filed, list again on 06.01.2025.”
21. Subsequently, vide order dated 28.08.2025, the name of Respondent
    No. 7 was deleted from the appeal at the risk of appellants. The
    extract of the said order is reproduced herein under:
           “Application for deleting the name of respondent no. 7 is
           allowed at the risk of the petitioners.”

     CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES
22. We have heard Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
    Appellants and Mr. Apoorva Agarwal, learned Additional Advocate
    General for the respondent State.
23. Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, submitted that the Superintendent of
    Police, Agra, on recommendation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, was
    directed for further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC without
    obtaining prior permission from the competent Court, even though
    a closure report had already been accepted. The Learned counsel
    for the Appellants contended that once the final report is accepted,
    only the criminal Court has the power to order further investigation
    and such power cannot be exercised by the police or any executive
    authority. Further, the so-called “further investigation” is in fact an
    impermissible de-novo or fresh investigation, as it was ordered
    after about seven years without any new or additional material and
490                                                         [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       was initiated from the very first stage, including demands for DNA
       samples after several years, which amounts to filling up lacunae in
       the prosecution case.
24. The learned counsel for the Appellants further contended that the
    final report dated 30.05.2014 was filed after a thorough investigation
    and was accepted by the Court on 14.09.2015, after due notice to the
    original informant, who did not file any objection or a protest petition.
    It was also contended that the DNA report dated 21.09.2022 clearly
    concluded that the accused persons, including the Appellants, are
    not the biological fathers of the prosecutrix’s aborted foetus, which
    debunks the very genesis of the case and directly contradicts the
    allegations of the alleged incident. The learned counsel placed reliance
    on the judgment passed by this Court in Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad
    Ali alias Deepak and Ors. [reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762], wherein
    it was held that it is the part of procedure of the investigating agency
    to seek leave of the Court before conducting “further investigation”.
25. On the contrary, learned AAG argued that there is no bar under
    Section 173(8) of CrPC against conducting further investigation. It
    was argued that “further investigation” is merely continuation of the
    earlier investigation, and there is nothing in the CrPC to suggest
    that the Court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an
    application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC.
    The learned AAG also placed reliance upon the judgment of this
    Court in Dharam Pal versus State of Haryana and Ors. [reported
    in (2016) 4 SCC 160], wherein this Court held that the Police Officer
    has unrestricted power under Section 173(8) of CrPC to conduct
    further investigation.
26. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available
    on record.

       ANALYSIS
27. The power of the investigating agency to order further investigation
    in any criminal case is derived from the aegis of Section 173(8) of
    CrPC (also refer to Section 193(9) BNSS), which is reproduced as
    follows:
            “(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
            further investigation in respect of an offence after a
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                           491

          Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.


           report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the
           Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer
           in charge of the police station obtains further evidence,
           oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a
           further report or reports regarding such evidence in the
           form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to
           (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report
           or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded
           under sub-section (2).”
28. Thus, the powers of the investigating agency for further investigation
    are not in dispute herein. However, what catches attention here
    and which is also the crux of the controversy in the present case,
    is which authority can pass an order directing investigating agency
    to undertake further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC.
29. The issue regarding the procedure to be followed for directing further
    investigation in a case has been dealt by this Court in the case
    of Vinay Tyagi (supra), wherein this Court while dealing with the
    contours of Section 173(8) of CrPC relating to further investigation,
    propounded that the police ought to follow the procedure of seeking
    permission from the Court to conduct “further investigation” and file
    a supplementary chargesheet. The relevant paragraphs from the
    judgment are reproduced as under:
           “40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and
           the various judgments as aforeindicated, we would state
           the following conclusions in regard to the powers of a
           Magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section
           173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code:
           40.1. The Magistrate has no power to direct “reinvestigation”
           or “fresh investigation” (de novo) in the case initiated on
           the basis of a police report.
           40.2. A Magistrate has the power to direct “further
           investigation” after filing of a police report in terms of
           Section 173(6) of the Code.
           40.3. The view expressed in Sub-para 40.2 above is in
           conformity with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant
           Singh case by a three-Judge Bench and thus in conformity
           with the doctrine of precedent.
492                                                          [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


           40.4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific
           provision therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction by the
           Magistrate. The language of Section 173(2) cannot be
           construed so restrictively as to deprive the Magistrate of
           such powers particularly in face of the provisions of Section
           156(3) and the language of Section 173(8) itself. In fact,
           such power would have to be read into the language of
           Section 173(8).
           40.5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it must
           receive a construction which would advance the cause
           of justice and legislative object sought to be achieved.
           It does not stand to reason that the legislature provided
           power of further investigation to the police even after filing
           a report, but intended to curtail the power of the court to
           the extent that even where the facts of the case and the
           ends of justice demand, the court can still not direct the
           investigating agency to conduct further investigation which
           it could do on its own.
           40.6. It has been a procedure of propriety that the police
           has to seek permission of the court to continue “further
           investigation” and file supplementary charge-sheet. This
           approach has been approved by this Court in a number
           of judgments. This as such would support the view that
           we are taking in the present case……”
                                                (Emphasis Supplied)

30. In this very judgment, this Court while noting that although there is
    no explicit mandate under Section 173(8) of CrPC to seek leave of
    the Court before conducting further investigation, nevertheless, over
    the time, a practice has been developed to seek permission of the
    Court. Therefore, the practice of seeking the leave of the Court will
    have to be read into the provisions of Section 173(8) of CrPC, and
    it is essentially a prerequisite for directing further investigation. This
    Court therein held as follows:
           “49. Now, we may examine another significant aspect
           which is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have been
           understood and applied by the courts and investigating
           agencies. It is true that though there is no specific
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                            493

          Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.


           requirement in the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code
           to conduct “further investigation” or file supplementary
           report with the leave of the court, the investigating agencies
           have not only understood but also adopted it as a legal
           practice to seek permission of the courts to conduct “further
           investigation” and file “supplementary report” with the leave
           of the court. The courts, in some of the decisions, have
           also taken a similar view. The requirement of seeking prior
           leave of the court to conduct “further investigation” and/
           or to file a “supplementary report” will have to be read
           into, and is a necessary implication of the provisions of
           Section 173(8) of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea
           expositio will fully come to the aid of such interpretation
           as the matters which are understood and implemented for
           a long time, and such practice that is supported by law
           should be accepted as part of the interpretative process.
           50. Such a view can be supported from two different
           points of view: firstly, through the doctrine of precedent,
           as aforenoticed, since quite often the courts have taken
           such a view, and, secondly, the investigating agencies
           which have also so understood and applied the principle.
           The matters which are understood and implemented as
           a legal practice and are not opposed to the basic rule of
           law would be good practice and such interpretation would
           be permissible with the aid of doctrine of contemporanea
           expositio. Even otherwise, to seek such leave of the court
           would meet the ends of justice and also provide adequate
           safeguard against a suspect/accused”
                                                (Emphasis Supplied)

31. The proposition of the law laid down in the case of Vinay Tyagi
    (supra) has been further affirmed by the three Judge Bench of this
    Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Others versus
    State of Gujarat and Another [reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1].
32. This Court has dealt with a similar situation in the case of
    Peethambaran versus State Of Kerala & Another [reported
    in (2024) 16 SCC 65], wherein the District Police Chief, i.e.,
    Superintendent of Police, ordered further investigation. This Court
    therein, while quashing the order passed by the District Police
494                                                         [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Chief, held that the power to order further investigation rests either
       with the Magistrate concerned or a higher court, but not with the
       investigating agency. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment
       are reproduced as follows:
            “19. The Chief Police Officer of a district is the
            Superintendent of Police who is an officer of the Indian
            Police Service. Needless to state, an order from the
            District Police Chief is not the same as an order issued by
            the Magistrate concerned. Referring to Vinay Tyagi, this
            Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar noted that
            there is no specific requirement to seek leave of the court
            for further investigation or to file a supplementary report
            but the investigating agencies, have not only understood
            it to be so but have also adopted the same as a legal
            requirement. The doctrine of contemporanea exposito aids
            such an interpretation of matters which have been long
            understood and implemented in a particular manner to be
            accepted into the interpretive process. In other words, the
            requirement of permission for further investigation or to
            file a supplementary report is accepted within law and is
            therefore required to be complied with.
            20. In the facts at hand, it is clear that such a permission
            was never taken, granted or ordered. Consequently, FR-
            II is without basis. In FR-I it has been stated that in the
            absence of any documents in respect of the financial
            transactions, the instant case may be treated as a false
            case. This, then would necessarily imply that after due
            investigation conducted by a duly authorised person, the
            conclusion is that the ingredients of the section mentioned
            in the FIR have not been met and no case is made out.
                                      XXXX
            28. In terms of second question, the above discussion
            makes clear that the District Police Chief, Kottayam could
            not have ordered further investigation, as that power rests
            either with the Magistrate concerned or with a higher court
            and not with an investigating agency.”
                                                (Emphasis Supplied)
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         495

          Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Ors.


33. In light of the legal position as settled by this Court through the
    above judgments, it is safe to say that the power to direct further
    investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/
    Court concerned. In the event, the police/ investigating agency is of
    the opinion that further investigation is necessary in any particular
    case to cull out complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon
    them to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate/Court,
    without directing an order for further investigation by themselves.
    Once such an application is filed by the investigating agency, the
    Magistrate/Court would apply its judicial mind, in light of the facts and
    circumstances of the particular case and the reasons demonstrated
    by the investigating agency, in order to exercise its discretion for
    exercise of its power to decide whether or not further investigation
    is to be ordered under the purview of Section 173(8) of CrPC.
34. In the present case, the Under Secretary to the State of Uttar Pradesh,
    vide its letter dated 06.06.2019, directed that the investigation in the
    matter would be conducted by the CBCID. The Under Secretary
    also recommended that further investigation under Section 173(8) of
    CrPC be conducted through its letter addressed to the NHRC dated
    12.02.2021. Consequently, the Investigating Officer of the CBCID
    wrote a letter dated 22.04.2021 to the Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad,
    requesting to grant permission to conduct further investigation under
    Section 173(8) of CrPC and provide a copy of the case diary. However,
    the Court did not pass any order to the extent of requisitioning the
    Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation.
35. Further, vide letter dated 26.04.2021, the Superintendent of Police
    informed the Additional Superintendent of Police/Divisional Officer,
    Crime Branch, A.A.D., Agra, about the nomination of the IO in
    the present case and directed him to complete the investigation
    expeditiously, submit monthly progress reports, and forward the final
    report upon completion of the investigation.
36. Thus, it is amply clear that the Superintendent of Police acted in
    complete defiance of the procedure laid down under the law while
    passing orders directing further investigation without seeking leave
    of the Court. It is an unbecoming conduct from the officer of such
    a rank to exercise unfettered powers, in excess of its jurisdiction,
    thereby undermining the authority vested in the Court of law.
37. The learned AAG relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dharam
    Pal (supra) to suggest that the investigating agency has unrestricted
496                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       powers to conduct further investigation and is only required to inform
       the Court about the same. However, we find the reliance placed
       by learned AAG to be misplaced as the facts of the said case are
       completely in contrast with the present one. In Dharam Pal (supra),
       this Court was dealing with a situation wherein the complainant sought
       transfer of the investigation to the CBI, alleging several lapses in the
       investigation. The High Court declined such a transfer, noting that
       the trial had already commenced and several witnesses had been
       examined. This Court, therein, while setting aside the judgment of
       the High Court, transferred the investigation (de novo) to the CBI
       and held that while the constitutional courts can direct fresh/de
       novo/reinvestigation. Additionally, in Dharam Pal (supra), this Court,
       while referring to Vinay Tyagi (supra), has held that the Magistrate
       is empowered to direct “further investigation” as per its discretion
       based upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
38. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment dated
    20.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
    Lucknow Bench in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4000 of 2022 is
    set aside. In addition to that, the communication dated 06.06.2019
    and order dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and
    Respondent No. 4, respectively, directing further investigation, are
    also quashed and set aside.
39. We further make it clear that the opinions expressed herein should
    cause no prejudice to the criminal revision preferred by the original
    complainant or any other proceeding related to FIR No. 70/2013.
    The Court of District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad shall decide
    the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 440 of 2017 and any other
    proceeding, if any, on its own merits.
40. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Pending application(s), if any,
    shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan