01Facts
Opposite party no. 2 filed an FIR against the appellants under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.
¶ 2-3Initially, the Investigating Officer (IO) prepared a "final report" (FR) on June 9, 2016, concluding no offense was made out.
¶ 3A superior police officer (Additional S.P.) returned the case diary/FR to the IO with instructions.
¶ 6Following these directions, the IO conducted further investigation and submitted Charge Sheet No. 27/2017.
¶ 3The Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur, took cognizance and summoned the appellants via order dated 16.01.2019.
¶ 2The appellants challenged this order, arguing that superior police officers lack the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
¶ 502Issues
i.1. Whether a superior police officer is empowered to direct an Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation before the police report is filed in court.
¶ 9, 13ii.2. Whether the judicial requirement for "seeking leave of the court" for further investigation applies to the pre-submission administrative stage or only after a report has been filed under Section 173(2).
¶ 14, 2103Law Applied
Section 36 of the CrPC (now Section 30 BNSS), which grants superior police officers co-extensive powers of investigation as an officer-in-charge of a police station.
¶ 7, 9The doctrine derived from Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali regarding the distinction between "further investigation" and "reinvestigation".
¶ 8The principle in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, which clarified that the power to order further investigation after a court filing rests with the Magistrate.
¶ 8The precedent in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha establishing that superior officers can supervise investigations to ensure the discovery of truth.
¶ 12The rule in Bohatie Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which bars executive interference once a matter enters the judicial domain.
¶ 16-17Provisions in the judgment · 12 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 323Section 504Section 506
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 36Section 156Section 158Section 161Section 173Section 482
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 30Section 193
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that until a police report is submitted under Section 173(2) CrPC, the investigation remains under the "statutory and administrative supervision" of superior officers.
¶ 13, 18Under Section 36 CrPC and U.P. Police Regulations, a superior officer may scrutinize the case diary, identify deficiencies, and return the record to the IO with directions to collect omitted evidence.
¶ 11, 19The Court distinguished this "pre-submission" stage from the "post-submission" stage; while a court's permission is required for further investigation once a report is filed (to satisfy Section 173(8)), a superior officer can exercise "departmental supervision" to ensure a complete investigation before the report reaches the Magistrate.
¶ 14, 20, 21In this case, since the initial FR was never submitted to the court, the Additional S.P.’s return of the diary was a valid exercise of administrative power, not a violation of Section 173(8).
¶ 22-2305Holding
The Court held that the superior police officer exercised valid "administrative power" by returning the case diary for proper investigation before any report was filed in court.
¶ 23The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial court's order dated 16.01.2019, concluding that the police report submitted after this process contained sufficient prima facie material to proceed.
¶ 24-25Original Court PDF
Ravi Shankar And 2 OthersvsState Of U.P. And Another
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
