# Hon'ble Apex Court given in Ramachandran v. Udhayakumar reported in 2008-LAWS (SC)-5-95 - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 141 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-02-12 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 2013 - **Bench:** Vijay Prakash Pathak - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hon-ble-apex-court-given-in-ramachandran-v-udhayakumar-reported-in-2008-laws-sc-42470 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 173 (8)-after submission of investigation report under section 173 (2)-police can further investigate with formal permission of Magistrate-but Magistrate has no power to direct for fresh investigation or re-investigations. Held: Para-9 After considering the aforesaid verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble Kerala High Court, it is apparent that even the police after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code has right to further investigate under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code and the Magistrate can give formal permission to make further investigation to police when fresh facts come to light (When police informs and seek permission of the court). Case Law discussed: 2008-LAWS (SC)-5-95; LAS (KER)-2001-11-88 ## Text 1 All] Siya Ram Vs. State of U.P. And Another 141 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VIJAY PRAKASH PATHAK, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 37 of 2013 Siya Ram ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. And Another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 173 (8)-after submission of investigation report under section 173 (2)-police can further investigate with formal permission of Magistrate-but Magistrate has no power to direct for fresh investigation or re-investigations. Held: Para-9 After considering the aforesaid verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble Kerala High Court, it is apparent that even the police after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code has right to further investigate under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code and the Magistrate can give formal permission to make further investigation to police when fresh facts come to light (When police informs and seek permission of the court). Case Law discussed: 2008-LAWS (SC)-5-95; LAS (KER)-2001-11-88 (Delivered by Hon'ble Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist, Mathura permitting for reinvestigation in connection with case crime No.67 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 323, 363, 224, 225, 504, 427, 186 IPC, P.S. Chhata, District Mathura. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was got lodged by opposite party no.2 Gajendra Singh, S.I., P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar against 24 named persons and certain unknown persons including gents and ladies in which the applicant's name is shown at Serial No.5 with the allegations that the accused persons were interrupting the official work of recovering certain vehicles involved in the theft and also fired upon the police personnel. The said FIR was registered as case crime no.67 of of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 332, 353, 186, 224, 225 and 186 IPC. After investigation in the matter, the charge sheet was submitted only against five persons but not against the applicant. On submission of the said charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 04.05.2012, thereafter the matter was proceeded. In the meantime, on 01.08.2012 a report has been submitted by the S.I.S. Branch Mathura before the learned Court below to the effect that in case crime no.67 of 2012 an order has been received from S.S.P., Mathura to S.I.S. Branch Mathura for reinvestigation, hence the order for reinvestigation may be passed. On the said application, the learned Court below passed the order on the same day i.e. on 01.08.2012 as "permitted". 142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly contended that the Magistrate has no power to pass an order directing to permit for fresh investigation or reinvestigation, hence the order passed by the learned Magistrate is erroneous. Learned counsel cited the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Ramachandran Vs. Udhayakumar reported in 2008-LAWS (SC)-5-95. 5. Learned AGA submitted that as there was allegation against the applicant also but he has absconded at that time, hence in the interest of justice, the investigation was necessary in the matter, which has rightly been directed by the Magistrate. 6. I have considered the said argument and perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have also perused the aforesaid verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Ramachandran Vs. Udhayakumar (Supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 of the aforesaid verdict has observed as under: "(6) At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under subsection (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or re-investigation. This was highlighted by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and ors (1998 (5) SCC 223). It was, inter alia, observed as follows: "24. The dictionary meaning of "further" (when used as an adjective) is "additional; more; supplemental" "further" investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we heave also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further" report or reports -- and not fresh report or reports -- regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation." 7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the police has right to further investigate the matter under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code but no fresh investigation or reinvestigation. 8. Learned counsel has also cited the verdict of Hon'ble Kerala High Court given in K.N. Natarajan Vs. Sasidharan reported in LAWS (KER)-2001-11-88. In the said verdict, Hon'ble Kerala High Court has been pleased to hold that the Magistrate is not competent to order for reinvestigation. 9. After considering the aforesaid verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble Kerala High Court, it is apparent that even the police after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code has right to further investigate under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code and the Magistrate can give formal permission to make further investigation to police when 1 All] Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. & Others 143 fresh facts come to light (When police informs and seek permission of the court). 10. In view of the aforesaid consideration, the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate permitting for reinvestigation on a police report cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the learned Magistrate for reinvestigation is set aside. However, the learned Magistrate may permit for further investigation in the matter if so requires on fresh facts informed by the police. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN,J. THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA,J. CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 62 of 2013 Anil Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Hitesh Pachori Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate (A) Constitution of India, Article 226-21-Speedy Trail-fundamental Rights of an accused-for strict compliance of mandate of Section 170 (1), 173 (2) 41 and 470 (4-b) Cr.P.C. By letter and spiritdirection to install 2 photo machine either on circle level or Police Station itself-necessary fund and circular be issued promptly. Held: Para-8 We, therefore, want the Director General of Police to get a comprehensive circular issued by the next listing for ensuring that either the accused are arrested or they are given notice to appear before the Magistrate concerned on the date fixed for submitting the report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C as per the requirement in different situations alluded to above. (B) Code of Criminal ProcedureSection 309 as amended by Act No. 5 of 2009-effective from 31.12.09-for strict compliance and fixing liaility of judicial officer-certian guidelines issued Registrar General to ensure strict compliance-inform by action taken on next date. Held: Para 29 and 30 We would like the presence of the Registrar General on the next listing to inform the Court that a proper circular has been issued and to produce the same before this Court, and to give feedback on our suggestion made above that papers required under section 207 Cr.P.C. be prepared by the police and how the impediments on the police preparing the said papers be overcome. We would also like to have feedback from the District Judges regarding the extent to which compliance is being made by the trial Courts with the provisions of section 309 Cr.P.C as also the directions of the Apex Court and this Court and the impediments, if any for ensuring compliance of the aforesaid legislative mandate (Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.) 1. Counter affidavit filed today by the Investigating Officer on behalf of the State is taken on record. The investigating officer states that the investigation is still pending.