Complainant’s plea for further investigation is maintainable even after charge-sheet and framing of charges, Himachal Pradesh HC rules

FIR No. 249 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Paonta Sahib under Sections 103(1), 109 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning the death of Ashraf Ali, the petitioner’s brother.

The police filed a charge-sheet alleging an offence under Section 105 of the BNS on 2 February 2026, and the case was thereafter committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge on 19 March 2026.

The petitioner, in his capacity as complainant, filed an application under Section 193(9) of the BNSS seeking further investigation.

The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the grounds that it had been filed after submission of the charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, and that an application for further investigation could not be maintained at the instance of the complainant.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether a complainant can maintain an application under Section 193(9) of the BNSS seeking further investigation after submission of the police report and taking of cognizance?

Whether further investigation can be directed after cognizance and committal, but before framing of charges, where the complainant identifies an apparent investigative lapse involving material evidence?

Whether the facts of the case justified exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to set aside the refusal of further investigation?

Section 193(9) of the BNSS does not preclude further investigation after submission of the police report and permits the investigating officer to submit a supplementary report upon obtaining further oral or documentary evidence; where investigation is conducted during trial, the permission of the trial court is required and the investigation is ordinarily to be completed within ninety days.

The Court relied on Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177, for the distinction between further investigation and fresh or de novo investigation, but held that its restrictive observations regarding the complainant’s inability to seek further investigation were displaced by Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, which recognized the Magistrate’s power to direct further investigation even after cognizance and at the instance of the complainant.

It further relied on Rampal Gautam v. State, SLP (Criminal) No. 7968 of 2016, and Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347, for the principle that further investigation may be permitted even after filing of the charge-sheet or commencement of trial where it is necessary to discover the truth and secure real and substantial justice.

Section 239 of the BNSS, permitting alteration of charges before judgment, also supported the conclusion that the court need not ignore a serious investigative defect merely because charges have been framed.

Section 528 of the BNSS empowers the High Court to intervene to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, though such power must be exercised sparingly.

The High Court held that Section 193(9) contains no prohibition against a complainant bringing an investigative lapse to the notice of the court after filing of the charge-sheet or taking of cognizance.

Although the investigation itself must be conducted by the police, the complainant may seek judicial intervention where the police have failed to conduct a fair and complete investigation.

The timing of the application was also material: it had been filed after committal but before framing of charges, and therefore was not at the fag end of the trial.

The Court found the failure to send the accused persons’ seized mobile phones for forensic examination particularly significant because the alleged incident had been recorded on those phones.

After viewing the video produced before it, the Court concluded that forensic examination could materially assist in determining the authenticity and evidentiary value of the recording.

The allegations concerning CCTV footage and the unexamined witness did not independently establish a decisive lapse—the CCTV footage had been collected but was stated to be unusable, while the evidentiary value of Sher Khan’s alleged presence remained a matter for trial—but the omission regarding the mobile phones created sufficient doubt about the fairness and completeness of the investigation.

Consequently, the refusal to order further investigation was held inconsistent with the obligation to secure a fair investigation and trial.

Exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 8 June 2026 and allowed the complainant’s application.

The Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Paonta Sahib, was directed to conduct further investigation, particularly regarding the matters raised by the complainant, and complete it within ninety days, subject to extension with the permission of the trial court.