Courts may order further investigation post-cognizance; supplementary reports must strictly comply with the prescribed Section 173(2) format.

The petitioner, a former Naib Tehsildar in the General Record Room, Jammu (2009–2012), was accused of conspiring with a Patwari (co-accused Riaz Ahmed) to tamper with revenue records (Khasra No. 127/1) to confer undue benefits upon a private individual

Following the filing of a chargesheet, the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Jammu, vide order dated 19.01.2019, observed that the investigation was inadequate regarding the petitioner’s specific role and whether he or a subordinate held physical custody of the records

The Trial Court directed the investigating agency to "rectify the lapse"

Subsequently, the agency recorded additional statements of two witnesses but submitted them in report form rather than a formal supplementary chargesheet

Based on this, the Trial Court passed orders dated 01.06.2019 and 08.06.2019 framing charges against the petitioner under the JK PC Act and RPC

The petitioner challenged these orders, alleging judicial bias and lack of jurisdiction to order further investigation after taking cognizance

The court relied on Section 173(8) of the CrPC, which allows for further investigation even after a police report has been forwarded to the Magistrate

It applied the principle from Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) and Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujrat (2004), holding that defective investigations discovered during trial can be cured by further investigation

Furthermore, the court cited VinuBhai HariBhai Malaviya v. State of Gujrat (2019), affirming that a Magistrate’s power to ensure a "proper investigation" under Section 156(3) continues until the trial actually commences with the framing of charges

Regarding procedural compliance, the court invoked Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand (2024), which mandates that supplementary reports must be submitted in the form prescribed under Section 173(2)

The High Court first rejected the allegation of bias, noting that the Trial Court’s 19.01.2019 order actually protected the petitioner by observing he could not be charged solely based on his official designation without evidence of an overt act

The Court held that directing the agency to "rectify the lapse" was a valid exercise of the power to order further investigation to ensure a fair trial under Article 21

However, the Court found the subsequent investigation and framing of charges flawed

It noted that the investigating officer failed to verify the petitioner's specific defense—that the records were under the "lock and key" of a subordinate and tampered with before his tenure—despite having the technology (FSL) to determine the approximate age of the ink and tampering

The Court criticized the agency for submitting a "half-baked" report in a non-prescribed format, which the Trial Court erroneously accepted as sufficient to frame charges despite its earlier findings of inadequacy

However, it quashed the orders dated 01.06.2019 and 08.06.2019 regarding the framing of charges against the petitioner

The Court directed the respondent-agency to conduct a thorough and objective further investigation, specifically verifying the age of the tampering and the petitioner’s defense, and to file a final report in the prescribed form under Section 173(2) CrPC

The Trial Court was directed to consider the question of framing charges afresh thereafter