Further investigation requires independent verification; police cannot merely forward complainant-supplied documents.

The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner raped her in 2004 and that she made complaints to the police in later years.

An FIR was registered in 2021, and the initial charge-sheet was filed on 25.10.2021.

After the prosecutrix’s application to place 43 additional documents on record was allowed by the trial court, the High Court set that order aside on 21.09.2024, stating that the documents could be produced through the procedure for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The Public Prosecutor later applied under Section 173(8) CrPC; the trial court allowed the application on 09.01.2025. The police then seized the documents from the complainant, recorded her supplementary statement, and filed a supplementary charge-sheet. The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order and the supplementary charge-sheet under Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the trial court’s order permitting the additional documents to be taken on record complied with the procedure for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and the High Court’s earlier order.

2. Whether the police’s seizure and submission of the 43 documents, without independently verifying them, amounted to genuine further investigation or an impermissible mechanical exercise.

Section 173(8) CrPC, corresponding to Section 193(9) BNSS, permits further investigation after a police report has been filed and allows a further report to be submitted upon obtaining further oral or documentary evidence.

Relying on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, as affirmed in Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, the Court stated that the practice of obtaining prior court permission for further investigation and a supplementary report is a necessary implication of Section 173(8).

It also relied on Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, which held that the authority to order further investigation rests with the competent court or a higher court, not the investigating agency acting on its own.

Further investigation must involve a genuine inquiry by the investigating agency; merely receiving and forwarding documents does not satisfy that requirement.

The Court found that the police obtained the 43 documents directly from the complainant, recorded her supplementary statement on the same day, and filed the supplementary charge-sheet shortly thereafter.

Although the documents were said to be old complaints and official communications, the police made no effort to obtain or verify the relevant records from the police stations or government offices concerned.

The Court therefore concluded that the process was mechanical and appeared intended to bypass the procedural defect identified in its earlier order. It held that the police had acted as a conduit for the complainant rather than conducting independent further investigation, and that allowing the material to be introduced at that stage would prejudice the petitioner.

The judgment describes the charge-sheet as filed on 27.01.2025 in its account of the proceedings, but identifies the quashed charge-sheet as dated 26.01.2025 in its final order.