Acceptance of a final report does not bar further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

An FIR was registered on 6 August 2005 at Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri, against the applicant and others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, concerning the alleged murder of the informant’s parents.

During investigation, the informant filed an affidavit stating that she had not witnessed the incident and that the applicant had been falsely implicated. Her and her sister’s statements under Section 164 CrPC similarly stated that they did not know who had committed the murders.

The police submitted Final Report No. 156 of 2006, which was accepted by the Magistrate on 4 April 2006.

By order dated 5 August 2025, the Magistrate observed that prior permission was not required for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and disposed of the application accordingly.

The applicant challenged the Magistrate’s order and the consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

Whether further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC can be conducted after the Magistrate has accepted a final or closure report under Section 173(2) CrPC?

Whether the police must obtain prior permission or leave of the Magistrate before commencing further investigation after acceptance of the final report?

Whether the accused has a right to prior notice or hearing at the stage of further investigation?

Section 173(8) CrPC permits further investigation after submission of a police report under Section 173(2), including after acceptance of a closure report, and authorises the filing of a supplementary report based on further oral or documentary evidence.

In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, the Supreme Court held that further investigation is legally permissible after submission of the police report and that, as a matter of propriety and judicial safeguard, the investigating agency should seek the Court’s prior leave.

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat recognised the Magistrate’s power to direct further investigation at any stage before commencement of trial.

State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi, U.P.S.C. v. S. Pappaiah, N.P. Jharia v. State of M.P., and Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi establish that acceptance of a final report does not bar further investigation or subsequent cognizance if fresh material emerges.

However, under K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, further investigation must be a continuation or supplementation of the earlier investigation, not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation conducted de novo.

Under Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, an accused has no right to prior notice or hearing during the investigative stage.

The Court held that acceptance of the final report in 2006 did not terminate the statutory power of the police or the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The informant’s later application alleged that she and her siblings had been minors, had been compelled to sign affidavits, and that their statements had not been properly recorded; these allegations constituted fresh material warranting further investigation.

The proposed inquiry was treated as further investigation aimed at discovering additional evidence, rather than an impermissible reinvestigation or de novo inquiry.

The Court also held that the accused could not challenge the manner or commencement of investigation at that stage, since no statutory right of prior hearing existed during investigation.

Although the Court observed that the police should ordinarily inform the Magistrate and seek formal permission, it found no illegality in the impugned order permitting the investigation to proceed.

The accused has no right to prior notice or hearing at the investigation stage.

Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed, the order dated 5 August 2025 was upheld, and the Court expected the Investigating Officer to conduct a fair, judicious and transparent investigation.