Further investigation after filing a charge sheet requires prior permission of the competent court.

The Assam Cricket Association and its Chief Executive Officer challenged, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the order dated 21 March 2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in PRC Case No. 1881/2022, along with two police status reports dated 14 November 2024.

The petitioners’ FIR alleged large-scale financial irregularities in the Assam Cricket Association during the tenure of respondent No. 2 as honorary Secretary between 12 June 2016 and 12 January 2019.

Fatashil Ambari P.S. Case No. 817/2021 was registered under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 468, 469 and 471 IPC, and a charge-sheet was filed against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on 30 March 2022.

The charge-sheet stated that other persons might also be involved and that investigation would continue, with a supplementary charge-sheet to be filed whenever required.

On 14 November 2024, the Officer-in-Charge submitted two contradictory reports—one stating that investigation was continuing and another stating that investigation was complete and no supplementary charge-sheet would be filed.

After requiring clarification, the Magistrate relied on the report submitted on 20 December 2024 and directed that the case proceed towards consideration of charges.

Whether the police could validly continue further investigation after filing the charge-sheet without obtaining prior permission of the Magistrate under Section 173(8) CrPC.

Whether the contradictory police reports dated 14 November 2024 could be relied upon for deciding to proceed with the criminal case.

Whether the Magistrate’s order directing the case to proceed warranted interference in the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the informant was entitled to communication regarding the action taken in the alleged further investigation under Sections 173(2)(ii) and 173(8) CrPC.

The Court applied Section 173(2) CrPC, under which a police report is to be submitted after completion of investigation, and Section 173(8) CrPC, which permits further investigation after submission of the police report.

The Court held, relying principally on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak, (2013) 5 SCC 762, Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, and Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No. 350/2024, decided 4 February 2026, that prior leave or permission of the Court is a necessary procedural requirement before the police conduct further investigation or file a supplementary charge-sheet.

The Court also relied on Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, (2024) 16 SCC 65, which holds that the power to direct further investigation lies with the Magistrate or a higher court, and not with the investigating agency itself.

Although Section 173(8) does not expressly require prior permission, that requirement has been read into the provision as an established legal practice and necessary safeguard.

Section 173(2)(ii), read with Section 173(8), requires communication to the informant regarding action taken in a valid further investigation.

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised only where interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

The Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet while simultaneously stating that investigation would continue, despite not obtaining prior permission from the Magistrate.

The Court held that the endorsement in the charge-sheet promising a future supplementary charge-sheet did not amount to judicial permission and could not legally authorise independent continuation of investigation.

Consequently, any investigation undertaken thereafter lacked legal sanction, and the contradictory reports dated 14 November 2024, as well as the subsequent report dated 20 December 2024, had no legal relevance as reports of valid further investigation.

Since the alleged further investigation itself was unauthorised, the petitioners’ claim to communication under Sections 173(2)(ii) and 173(8) did not arise in law.

The Magistrate was therefore justified in proceeding with the existing case against respondents Nos. 2 and 3, and the contradictory police reports did not invalidate that decision.

Finding no infirmity in the Magistrate’s order dated 21 March 2025, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS and dismissed the criminal petition.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the concerned Magistrate.