Acceptance Of Final Report Doesn't Bar Further Investigation: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that acceptance of a final report by a Judicial Magistrate does not bar the investigating agency from carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made the observation while dismissing an application challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, which had permitted further investigation in a nearly two-decade-old murder case. The Court also clarified that an accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation and cannot question the manner in which the police conduct further investigation. Case in Brief Briefly put, an FIR was registered on August 6, 2005, alleging that the applicant and several others had murdered the informant's father and caused firearm injuries to her mother, who died on the way to the hospital. During the investigation, however, the informant filed an affidavit before the Magistrate stating that she had not witnessed the incident and that unknown persons had fired upon her parents. She stated that the applicant and others had been wrongly implicated. Her statement and that of her sister were subsequently recorded under Section 164 CrPC, in which they stated that the applicant had not committed the murder and that they did not know who had killed their parents. Finding no evidence against the applicant, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report in February 2006. The report was accepted by the competent court in April 2006. Nearly two decades later, the informant approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, seeking further investigation. The police thereafter sought permission to conduct further investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, passed an order on August 5, 2025, observing that permission of the Magistrate was not required for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. Therefore, the Investigating Officer started further investigation pursuant to the direction of the Superintendent of Police. Challenging this further investigation, the applicant moved the High Court, arguing that the matter had already attained finality after acceptance of the final report and that proceedings could not be allowed to continue endlessly. It was contended that reopening of a case after 20 years without discovery of any fresh material is nothing but re-investigation or de-novo investigation, which is not permissible in law. The applicant also argued that the police could not suo motu reopen the investigation. In this regard, his counsel relied upon Supreme Court decisions including Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. 2026 and Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali 2012. The State, on the other hand, opposed the application while contending that filing of a closure report does not bar further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC even after its acceptance by the Court. It was further submitted that fresh material had been brought on record and that the police had approached the court concerned for further investigation. High Court's observations Referring to Section 173(8) CrPC and the Supreme Court's decisions in Vinay Tyagi 2012, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya 2019, State of Rajasthan vs. Aruna Devi 1994, K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala 1998 and other cases, the Court held that further investigation is legally permissible even after acceptance of a final report. The Court specifically concluded thus: "There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been accepted".It further observed that prior to carrying out further investigation, it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be recalled or reviewed by the court concerned. However, Justice Singh also clarified that while it is desirable for the police to inform the court and seek formal permission before conducting further investigation, the statutory power of further investigation remains available to the police under Section 173(8) CrPC. On the merits of the case, the Court found that the present case was not merely an attempt to reopen the investigation without any new material. The bench noted that the informant had alleged that she and her siblings were minors when the incident occurred and that they had been detained by the accused persons. It was also alleged that they were compelled to sign on several affidavits / papers and that although they were present at the scene, the police had not recorded their statements. Considering these material claims, the Court noted that, pursuant to the informant's application, "fresh material and evidence have been brought on record". It therefore opined that the investigation could proceed under Section 173(8) CrPC, which provides for further investigation and not re-investigation. The Court also considered the question as to whether the accused could challenge the further investigation at ...

Acceptance Of Final Report Doesn't Bar Further Investigation: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Acceptance Of Final Report Doesn't Bar Further Investigation: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers