“Thus obtaining official permission to conduct further investigation is recognized in law and the same must invariably be obtained as a matter of practice, where an investigating officer does not seek permission before conducting further investigation, the investigation and report cannot be considered non-respective. -is only for the reason mentioned.”

Section 173(8) of Cr.PC allows further investigation of an offense after submission of final report. The section does not require the investigating officer to take the permission of the court before proceeding with the investigation in the case. However, there are a number of decisions of the Supreme Court which have held that the Investigating Officer must take the permission of the Court before proceeding with investigations to “to maintain comity between the court and the investigating agency”.

The high court, referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court, observed that no ratio was laid down in any of the decisions to hold that “when a supplemental/supplemental final report has been submitted on the basis of further investigation, without obtaining formal permission would do the same non-est“.

He noted that in the BNSS, the provision of section 193(9) says that during the trial, further investigations may be conducted with the permission of the Court hearing the case and this shall be completed within a period of 90 days which may be extended with the permission of the Court.

In that case, the petitioner applied to the High Court to quash the proceedings pending against her in an offense registered against her for allegedly being in an “illegal rendezvous” and assaulting the petitioner’s wife. She claimed before the Court that she was not named in the FIR but was arraigned as an accused later on the basis of further investigation conducted without the permission of the Court after the final report was filed.

She claimed that she was arraigned as an accused because she had filed a complaint against the applicant and 8 others saying that they had assaulted her on the same day prior to the alleged offense with which the present case is concerned. The FIR against which the petitioner moved for quashing was registered under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by weapons or dangerous means), 325 (Punishment for causing grievous hurt), 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by weapons or dangerous means), 307 (attempted murder).

The Court held that she was brought to trial as an accused based on the witness statements recorded by the police during the subsequent investigations. It also said that the additional/supplementary final report is “legally sustainable”.

“Be that as it may, inclusion of the petitioner as the 6th accused in this offense is done with the help of necessary materials. Now the trial court accepted both the final reports and took cognizance of the matter. In such a case, it could not be held at this point that the petitioner is innocent and was sued as the 6th additional respondent without materials or in derogation of the legal procedure. Thus the prayer here would necessarily fail,” the court said while dismissing the quashing motion.

Case Title: Asha v State of Kerala and Another

Counsel for Petitioners: PJ Justine, CH Abdul Rasac Advocates

Counsel for the defendants: Prosecutor Adv. MP Prasanth

Case no: Crl.MC no. 7975 of 2024

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693