Investigating Officers may add accused and cognizable offences during investigation without prior Magistrate permission.

The petitioners, described as Accused Nos.7 and 8, challenged the Investigating Officer’s Memo dated 18.08.2026 filed in Crime No.1064 of 2024, whereby they were added as accused and Section 317(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) was added to the existing Sections 306 and 317(2) BNS.

The crime originated from a complaint alleging theft of approximately 480 grams of gold ornaments and batteries from the complainant’s residence and clinic by his domestic servants, including Accused No.1.

During investigation, Accused Nos.2 to 6 were added on the basis of material collected and the statement of Accused No.1. Further investigation allegedly disclosed that stolen gold had been sold to Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., which operated branches at Masab Tank and Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

The petitioners were associated with the company as Directors, and the company had reportedly purchased gold from Accused No.1 on various dates.

1. Whether the Investigating Officer could, during further investigation, array the petitioners as additional accused and add Section 317(4) BNS to the existing offences through a Memo filed before the trial Court?

2. Whether the allegations and material collected during investigation disclosed sufficient grounds connecting the petitioners with the alleged purchase of stolen gold so as to justify quashing the Memo under Section 528 BNSS?

3. Whether the High Court could grant the petitioners blanket protection from arrest or a direction to the Investigating Officer not to take coercive steps while declining to quash the Memo?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS concerning the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It held that, during investigation, the Investigating Officer may array persons subsequently found to be involved and add appropriate offences on the basis of material collected; prior permission is required for investigating non-cognizable offences, but not cognizable offences.

Section 317(4) BNS was treated as a cognizable offence, enabling investigation without prior judicial permission.

The Court also relied on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 18, concerning the liability and role of persons constituting the directing mind of a company.

It further relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, and Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170, for the principle that a blanket “no coercive steps” or “not to arrest” order cannot ordinarily be granted in proceedings where quashing is refused, since such protection is in the nature of anticipatory bail.

The Court found that the investigation had progressed beyond the original allegations against Accused No.1 and his wife.

The material allegedly showed that Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. had purchased gold from Accused No.1 on several occasions and that the petitioners were Directors of the company during at least some of those transactions.

Whether the petitioners had knowledge that the gold was stolen, had conspired with the company’s branch managers, or otherwise participated in the transactions were matters requiring investigation and could not be conclusively determined at the quashing stage.

The Court rejected the argument that the Investigating Officer was required to obtain prior permission before adding Section 317(4) BNS, holding that the offence was cognizable and could therefore be investigated without such permission.

It further held that the Memo merely brought to the trial Court’s notice the addition of the petitioners and the alteration of the offence, and that no illegality or procedural infirmity was established.

The Court distinguished Sunil Bharti Mittal, finding that the present case involved specific allegations concerning the petitioners’ connection with the company and its alleged purchase of stolen property.

Finally, because the petitioners sought protection substantially equivalent to anticipatory bail, the Court declined to grant blanket protection from arrest and directed them to seek appropriate relief before the competent Court.

The Memo dated 18.08.2026 disclosed no illegality, irregularity, or legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS.

The prayer for blanket protection from arrest or “no coercive steps” was also rejected.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.