Further Investigation & Report Thereof Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because Formal Permission Was Not Obtained: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that obtaining formal permission for further investigation is a recognized legal requirement and should be standard practice. However, if an Investigating Officer conducts further investigation without such permission, it alone does not render the investigation or the resulting report invalid.
The Court was considering a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of proceedings in FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 341, 324, 325, 326, 307 of IPC.
The bench of Justice A Badharudeen observed, “Thus obtaining formal permission to conduct further investigation is recognized in law and the same has to be opted invariably as a matter of practice, when an Investigating Officer fails to seek permission before conducting further investigation, the further investigation and the report thereof could not be held as non-est for the said reason alone.”
Advocate PJ Justine appeared for the Appellant and PP MP Prasanth appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the Petitioner that he was not initially listed as an accused in the FIR. The original case involved accused Nos.1 to 5, who allegedly attacked the complainant and his family. Accusations include stabbing, beating with bamboo sticks, and causing injuries. Following further investigation, the Petitioner was later added as the 6th accused after filing a private complaint against the complainant and others over an alleged attack against him earlier that day. The Petitioner contended that his inclusion as an accused lacked basis and that the supplementary report adding him was filed without the permission of the Court warranting judicial intervention.
The Court noted that the statutory provision doesn't make it mandatory for the Investigating Officer to seek permission to conduct further investigation but the Apex Court has held that to keep comity between the Court and the Investigating Agency the Investigating Officer has to get formal permission for conducting further investigation.
The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy and Another and quoted, “(i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under S.173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under S.173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. (ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under S.173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. (iv) Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Art.20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation. (v) 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 S.173(8) of the CrPC.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the supplementary/additional final report is legally sustainable.
Finally, the Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.
Cause Title: Asha v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:80608)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates PJ Justine and CH Abdul Rasac
Respondent: PP MP Prasanth
