# Pradeep Kumar Maurya & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 131
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-21
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2882 of 2016
- **Bench:** Subhash Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-kumar-maurya-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53107
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Articles 12, 14, 21 & 39-A - Fair
Investigation
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 169, 170 &
173(2) - Issue: Can a superior officer of
police issue directions for filing of a
charge sheet or final report ? - Section 36
Cr.P.C. - Powers of Superior Officers of
Police: It is permissible for any superior
officer
of
police
to
take
over
the
investigation from the officer in charge of
the police station, either suo motu or on
the
direction
of
a
superior
officer,
including that of the Government. If a
superior officer of police investigates the
matter himself, he may form the final
opinion for filing a charge sheet or final
report. However, while exercising powers
as a supervisory authority, he cannot form
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the opinion in that regard - it lies
exclusively within the domain of the
investigating
officer/in-charge
of
the
police
station.
While
exercising
supervisory authority, if it appears to the
superior
officer
that
there
are
shortcomings or flaws in the investigation,
he may point out such shortcomings and
flaws and direct the investigating officer
to conduct further investigation on those
points, and then form an opinion. But he
cannot form his own opinion either to
send the charge sheet or the final report,
and no such direction can be given by him.
If the officer in charge of the police
station is of the opinion, and submits a
final report to the effect that no case is
made out to send up the accused for trial,
no other authority has the power to direct
him to change his opinion and file/submit
a charge sheet to the Magistrate. No
authority can direct the investigating
officer either to file a charge sheet or a
final report. There is no power, express or
implied, conferred under the Code on a
supervising authority of police to direct
the investigating officer to file a charge
sheet or a final report, nor can he form his
own opinion in this regard and direct the
investigating
officer
accordingly.
(Paras 19, 21, 23, 24)
Criminal Law - In the instant case F.I.R.
was
lodged
against
the
applicants.
Investigating
Officer
submitted
final
report. In the meantime, the investigation
was transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. S.P.,
C.B.C.I.D., cancelled the final report and
directed that a charge sheet be filed.
Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed, on
which cognizance was taken. The order of
cognizance and the charge sheet was
challenged. Held: The charge sheet filed
by the Investigating Officer in compliance
with the illegal order passed by the
supervisory
authority,
i.e.,
the
Superintendent of Police, cannot be held
to be legal. Application was allowed, and
the charge sheet along with the entire
proceedings of the case was quashed.
(Para 24)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Pradeep Kumar Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
131
32. Looking to the facts of the case,
law on the dispute, nature of allegations
and the relationship of the accused persons
as per the F.I.R., the present cases are fit
cases which deserve to be quashed. Hence,
Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.
4446
of
2020
and
Criminal
Misc.
Application U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2020 are
allowed and the proceeding against the
applicants/accused therein are quashed.

33. In so far as the proceedings
under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act are concerned, the
allegations in the matter are for violence
alleged to have taken place in the years
2018-2019 which is after a period of about
more than 02 years. The complainant
carries multiple prayers which even prays
for return of "Streedhan". The reading of
the complaint goes to show that although
the complainant was alleged to have been
assaulted and beaten by her husband, but
there is no supporting documents to show
any kind of injury received by her. The
allegations in the complaint are general and
omnibus.
The
husband,
father-in-law,
mother-in-law,
nand
and
nandoi
are
respondents therein. A perusal of the
allegations go to show that there has been
matrimonial dispute. The fact that marriage
was a love marriage is not disputed. The
fact that the complainant is a well-educated
and qualified person having worked in
various companies of international fame is
also not under dispute. The allegations
being general and omnibus in nature go to
show that the complaint has been filed only
with an intention to implicate the maximum
number of family members for obvious
reasons. Thus Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 No. 18261 of 2022 and Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 No. 36143 of
2022 also deserve to be allowed and the
proceedings therein against the applicants
as prayed for deserve to be quashed. As
such, the said two petitions are also
allowed and the proceedings against the
applicants therein are also quashed.
---------
(2025) 2 ILRA 131
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA
SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2882 of 2016

Pradeep Kumar Maurya & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Vinod Kumar Shahi, Abhishek Srivastava,
Bal Keshwar Srivastava, Sanjeev Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Osama Aziz (In Person)

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Articles 12, 14, 21 & 39-A - Fair
Investigation
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 169, 170 &
173(2) - Issue: Can a superior officer of
police issue directions for filing of a
charge sheet or final report ? - Section 36
Cr.P.C. - Powers of Superior Officers of
Police: It is permissible for any superior
officer
of
police
to
take
over
the
investigation from the officer in charge of
the police station, either suo motu or on
the
direction
of
a
superior
officer,
including that of the Government. If a
superior officer of police investigates the
matter himself, he may form the final
opinion for filing a charge sheet or final
report. However, while exercising powers
as a supervisory authority, he cannot form
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the opinion in that regard - it lies
exclusively within the domain of the
investigating
officer/in-charge
of
the
police
station.
While
exercising
supervisory authority, if it appears to the
superior
officer
that
there
are
shortcomings or flaws in the investigation,
he may point out such shortcomings and
flaws and direct the investigating officer
to conduct further investigation on those
points, and then form an opinion. But he
cannot form his own opinion either to
send the charge sheet or the final report,
and no such direction can be given by him.
If the officer in charge of the police
station is of the opinion, and submits a
final report to the effect that no case is
made out to send up the accused for trial,
no other authority has the power to direct
him to change his opinion and file/submit
a charge sheet to the Magistrate. No
authority can direct the investigating
officer either to file a charge sheet or a
final report. There is no power, express or
implied, conferred under the Code on a
supervising authority of police to direct
the investigating officer to file a charge
sheet or a final report, nor can he form his
own opinion in this regard and direct the
investigating
officer
accordingly.
(Paras 19, 21, 23, 24)
Criminal Law - In the instant case F.I.R.
was
lodged
against
the
applicants.
Investigating
Officer
submitted
final
report. In the meantime, the investigation
was transferred to the C.B.C.I.D. S.P.,
C.B.C.I.D., cancelled the final report and
directed that a charge sheet be filed.
Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed, on
which cognizance was taken. The order of
cognizance and the charge sheet was
challenged. Held: The charge sheet filed
by the Investigating Officer in compliance
with the illegal order passed by the
supervisory
authority,
i.e.,
the
Superintendent of Police, cannot be held
to be legal. Application was allowed, and
the charge sheet along with the entire
proceedings of the case was quashed.
(Para 24)
Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. Bihar Vs J.A.C. Saldanhah..(1980) 1 Supreme
Court cases 544

2. Abhinandan Jha Vs Dinesh Mishra A.I.R.
1968, Supreme Court 117

3. Mutharaju Satyanarayan Vs Government of
Andhra Pradesh & ors., 1997, Criminal Law
Journal 3741 Andhra Pradesh

4. Sathyavani Ponrani Vs Samuel Raj, 2010 (4)
CTC 833

5. Nirmal Singh Kohlon Vs State of Punjab
(2009) 1 SCC 441

6. Subramanian Swamy Vs CBI, (2014) 8
Supreme Court Cases 682

7. H.N. Rishbud Vs State of Delhi 1955 CrLJ 526

8. Mutharaju Satyananrayan Vs Government of
A.P. & ors. 1997 Cri.L.J. 3741

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. List revised none appeared for the
opposite party no. 2 even in the revised call
though notice has properly been served.

2.
Heard
Sri
Bal
Kshwar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant as well as learned A.G.A. Sri
Rajesh Kumar Singh and perused the
material on record.

3. The present application has been
filed by the applicants with prayer to quash
the impugned charge sheet bearing no. 17
of 2011, 17-A of 2011 dated 27.08.2011
arising out of crime No. 419 of 2010, under
Section 147, 323, 504, 353 IPC, Police
Station
Wazirganj,
District
Lucknow,
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
133
pending in the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Lucknow transferred thereafter
in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
South, Lucknow (State of U.P. Vs. Mohd.
Airaj Siddiqui and other)

4. Facts in brief are that the
applicant no. 2 Mohd. Airaj Siddiqui
lodged an F.I.R. as Crime No. 24 of 2009
under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504, 506
I.P.C. against the son of informant in the
present case. In that case, he appeared
before the learned court of Magistrate and
moved bail application which was granted.
While he was in judicial custody, the
applicants in the present case Airaz
Siddiqui, his father Jamerrudin and some
other Advocates reached there and started
abusing and also assaulted him with kicks
and fists and Danda causing injuries to him.
When she came in rescue she was also
beaten, regarding which present F.I.R. was
lodged against the applicants as Crime No.
359 of 2010 under Sections 147, 323, 504,
427, 307, 308 I.P.C. During the course of
investigation, the Investigating Officer
made spot inspection and recorded the
statements of witnesses and submitted final
report no. 201/2010 in lack of evidence. In
the
mean
time,
investigation
was
transferred to C.B.C.I.D. and it was taken
over by Inspector C.B.C.I.D. by the order
of Sector Officer C.I.S.I. order No. C.I.S.-
1(Miss)10
dated
26.11.2010.
The
Superintendent
of
Police
C.B.C.I.D.
cancelled the final report submitted by
local police on 06.06.2011 and send a letter
no. C.B. 447/10 dated 06 June 2011,
mentioning that he has cancelled the final
report no. 201/10 dated 08.09.2010 by local
police and sending back with the letter with
direction to file charge sheet in the court
and then to submit compliance report at the
Head Quarter. Subsequently, charge sheet
was filed in the present case by C.B.C.I.D.
under Sections 147, 323, 504, 353 I.P.C.
against the applicants on which cognizance
was taken by the learned court concerned.
Being
aggrieved
with
the
order
of
cognizance and charge sheet present
application was preferred before this Court.

5. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the applicants that in this case
once final report was submitted by the
Investigating Officer it must have been sent
to the court concerned having jurisdiction
but after cancelling the final report
Superintendent of Police has no authority
to direct the Investigating Officer to file
charge sheet. He has no power in this
regard. He could only direct for further
investigation as provided under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer is
the authority to form final opinion as to
whether charge sheet or final report is to be
filed in the case on the basis of material
collected during the course of investigation.
Such final opinion cannot be formed by any
other
superior
authority
except
the
Investigating Officer/Officer In-charge of
Police Station. He further submitted that in
view of Section 36 of Criminal Procedure
Code, any superior Police Officer may
exercise the powers of Officer In-charge of
Police Station and investigate the matter in
that capacity and then he can form final
opinion about filing of charge sheet or final
report but being supervisory authority he
has no such right. He can only indicate the
shortcomings made by the Investigating
Officer and direct him to further investigate
in that direction and then to form opinion
and file police report as required under
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In this way, the
order passed by Superintendent of Police
dated 06.06.2011 cannot be said to be
lawful by which he has directed the
Investigating Officer to file charge sheet
before the court against the accused
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons and to submit compliance report at
the Head Quarter. When the order passed
by Superintending Authority is illegal, the
charge sheet filed in compliance thereof
will also be illegal. It is against the
principles of fair investigation as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, therefore, request to quash the charge
sheet and entire proceedings of the case. He
relied his arguments on the law as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Bihar Vs. J.A.C.
Saldanhah..(1980) 1 Supreme Court cases
544; Abhinandan Jha Vs. Dinesh Mishra
A.I.R. 1968, Supreme Court 117; and
Mutharaju Satyanarayan Vs. Government
of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 1997,
Criminal
Law
Journal
3741
Andhra
Pradesh.

6. Learned A.G.A. though opposed
the prayer for quashing of charge sheet but
could not dispute the fact of cancellation of
F.R. by Superintendent of Police on
06.06.2011 and direction by him to file
charge sheet through letter to A.S.P./Sector
Officer dated 06.06.2011 and consequent
submission of charge sheet by Investigating
Officer C.B.C.I.D. in compliance thereof.
He could also not dispute the legal position
as settled by the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid cases.

7. The
main question which
emerges is whether Superintendent of
Police after cancelling final report direct
the Investigating officer to submit charge
sheet and the charge sheet submitted in
compliance
of
order
passed
by
Superintendent of Police as aforesaid can
be said to be lawful.

8. It has been well established that
fairness is a facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Such a fairness in
action is also mandatorily to be followed in
a criminal investigation. A right to a fair
investigation is not only a constitutional
right but a natural right as well. In
Sathyavani Ponrani V. Samuel Raj, 2010
(4) CTC 833, while dealing with fair
investigation, the Madras High Court has
held that the same is mandatory under
Articles 14, 21 and 39 of the Constitution
of India. The following paragraph would be
apposite:

 66.Free and Fair Investigation
and Trial is enshrined in Article 14, 21 and
39-A of the Constitution of India. It is the
duty of the state to ensure that every citizen
of the country should have the free and fair
investigation and trial. The preamble and
the constitution are compulsive and not
facultative, in that free access to the form
of justice is integral to the core right to
equality, regarded as a basic feature of our
Constitution. Therefore such a right is a
constitutional
right
as
well
as
a
fundamental right. Such a right cannot be
confined only to the accused but also to the
victim depending upon the facts of the
case. Therefore such a right is not only a
constitutional right but also a human right.
Any procedure which comes in a way of a
party in getting a fair trial would in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

9. In Nirmal Singh Kohlon V. State
of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441, the Supreme
Court further observed that:-

"28. An accused is entitled to a
fair investigation. Fair investigation and
fair trial are concomitant to preservation of
fundamental right of an accused under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

10. In Subramanian Swamy v. CBI,
(2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 682, the
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
135
Apex Court has ruled that any investigation
into crime should be fair and should not be
tainted. It has been further held that Rule of
Law is a facet of equality under Article 21
of the Constitution of India.

11. In the present case the local
police after investigation submitted final
report no. 201/2010 dated 8.9.2010. In the
meantime, investigation was tranferred to
C.B.C.I.D.
and
it
took
over
the
investigation. On 6.6.2011 Superintendent
of Police C.B.C.I.D cancelled the final
report no. 201 of 2010 dated 8.9.2010 and
directed the Sector officer C.B.C.I.D to
submit charge sheet very soon in the court
and file comliance report to the Head
Quarter. In comliance thereof charge sheets
against the applicants were filed in the
court and cognizance was taken.

12.
Letter
written
by
the
Superintendent of Police C.B.C.I.D dated
6.6.2011 is quoted as under:

"गोपनीय/आवश्यक
श्री कृपाशंकर स ंह
अपर पुसि अधीक्षक/खण्डासधकारी
अपराध शाखा, अपारध अनु ंधान सवभाग
खण्ड- ीआईए -प्रथम।

कृपया अपने म ंख्यक पत्र सिनांक 06-06-2011 का
अविोकन करने का कष्ट करें, सि के द्वारा प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में
स्थानीय पुसि द्वारा सनगगत असततम ररपोर्ग ंख्या-201/10 सिनांक
8-9-10 को सनरस्त सकये िाने का अनुरोध सकया गया है।

उक्त ंिभग में अवगत कराना है सक स्थानीय पुसि द्वारा
सनगगत असततम ररपोर्ग ंख्या -201/10 सिनांक 8-9-10 मेरे द्वारा
सनरस्त कर िी गयी है, सि े मूिरूप में वाप इ पत्र के ाथ
 ंिग्न कर भेिी िा रही है, तथा सनिेसशत सकया िाता है सक
असभयुक्तों के सवरूद्ध शीघ्रताशीघ्र आरोप पत्र माननीय तयायािय में
प्रेसित कर अनुपािन आख्या मुख्यािय उपिब्ध कराना ुसनसित
करें।
 ंिग्नकः- उपरोक्तानु ार

ह० अपठनीय
(प्रकाश सत्रपाठी)
पुसि अधीक्षक
अपराध शाखा, अपराध अनु० सवभाग,
उ०प्र०, िखनऊ।
पत्र ंख्याः- ी बी -447/10
सिनांक- िखनऊ िून6, 2011"

13. Chapter XII of the Code deals
with the information to the police and their
powers to investigate the matter. On
conclusion of investigation section 169
provides that if it appears to the officer incharge of police station upon investigation
that there is no sufficient evidence or
reasonable ground of suspicion to justify
the forwarding of accused to a Magistrate,
and accused is in custody he shall release
him on his executing bond with or without
sureties or direct him to appear before a
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of the case. Section 172 says that every
police officer making investigation under
this Chapter shall enter his proceedings in
the investigation in a dairy day by day.
Section 173(2) provides that as soon as the
investigation is completed, the officer incharge of police station shall forward a
report in the form prescribed by the State
Government, to the Magistrate empowered
to take cognizance of offence on a police
report. Section 173(3) provides that where
a Suprior Officer of the Police has been
appointed under section 158, the report
shall, in any case in which the state
government by general or special order so
directs, be submitted through that officer,
and he may, pending the orders of the
Magistrate, direct the officer in-charge of
the
police
station
to
make
further
investigation. Section 173(8) provides that
the officer in-charge of police station is
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
empowered to forward a further report or
reports regarding evidence obtained by
him. After filing of further report, the
Magistrate will exercise the jurisdiction for
taking cognizance of the offence.

14.
Section
36
of
Criminal
Procedure Code provides about the power
of Superintending Authority of Police as
under:

Police officers superior in rank to
an officer in charge of a police station may
exercise the same powers, throughout the
local area to which they are appointed, as
may be exercised by such officer within the
limits of his station.

15. From the language used in
Section 36 Cr.P.C. Superior Police Officer
have also been conferred with the powers
as Officer incharge of police station, which
infers that the Superior Officer of Police
can also make investigation of the case.
The legislative intendment of Section 36 of
Cr.P.C. is that all the superior rank police
officers
above
SHO
including
the
Superintendent of Police should involve in
supervising the investigation to ensure the
integrity and quality. It is permissible for
any Superior officer of police to take over
the investigation from such officer incharge
of police station either suo motu or on the
direction of the superior officer even that of
the Government. When any police office
referred to in Section 36 conducts the
investigation that cannot be called in
question as without authority.

16. From the above provisions of
the Code, it is clear that investigation has to
be conducted by the officer in-charge of the
police station or the superior officer. Upon
conducting investigation, the officer incharge of police station or the superior
officer shall forward the accused, if he is
under custody to the Magistrate empowered
to take cognizance of the offence if it
appears to him that there is sufficient
evidence
or
reasonable
ground
of
suspicion. After conducting investigation,
the officer in charge of police station or
superior officer shall forward a report to the
Magistrate after collecting the evidence. If
there is no sufficient material, he has to
send final report to the Magistrate.

17. The officer in-charge of police
station is empowered to conduct further
investigation even after filling chargesheet, as provided under Section 173(8)
after investigating the case and collecting
the evidence. The power of investigation is
entirely vested in the officer in-charge of
police station. There is no provision in the
Code empowering any other officer, other
than the officer in-charge of police station,
to file the police report, except the superior
officer who has taken over the investigation
himself. The Magistrate has also no power
to direct the officer in-charge of police
station to file a report, even though he can
take cognizance of the offence on the basis
of the report filed by such officer.

18. The important steps in the Code
as to investigation by the officer in-charge
of police station consist of formation of
opinion by such officer as to whether the
material collected is sufficient to place the
case before the Magistrate against the
accused for trial or for filing of final report.
Thus, discretion is vested in the officer incharge of police station to form an opinion
that collected evidence is sufficient to file
the police report or not. The said opinion is
subject to jurisdiction of Magistrate to take
cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate
cannot direct the investigating officer to
file the police report. Thus, whether there is
2 All. Pradeep Kumar Maurya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
137
prima facie case made out against the
accused or not for filing report is within the
jurisdiction of the investigating officer and
superior officer conducting the investigaion
subject to the control of the Magistrate. No
other authority can interfere with the
discretion of formation of opinion except
Investigating Officer/Officer incharge of
police station.

19. Under the Code investigation
consists generally of the following steps:
(1)
Proceeding
on
the
spot,
(2)
Ascertainment of facts and circumstances
of the case, (3)Discovery and arrest of the
suspected offender, (4) Collection of
evidence, (5) Formation of opinion. There
is no provision permitting delegation of
power regarding forming of opinion as to
whether or not there is a case to place the
accused on trial but only a provision
entitling superior officers to supervise or
participate under Section 36. A superior police
officer exercising the powers under Section 36
can pass order for further investigation in a
case. It infers that the superior officer of police
if investigates the matter himself he may form
the final opinion for filing of charge sheet or
final report but while exercising his powers as
supervisory authority he cannot form the
opinion in this regard. It is exclusively in the
domain of investigating officer/in-charge of
police station. If being supervisory authority it
appears to him that there are short comings or
flaws in the investigation he can indicate those
short-comings and flaws and direct the
investigating
officer
to
make
further
investigation on such points and then to form
opinion but cannot form his own opinion
either to send the charge sheet or final report
and no such direction can be given by him.

20. In the case of H.N. Rishbud v.
State of Delhi 1955 CrLJ 526 the Supreme
Court observed on page 531 as under:

"
Thus,
under
the
Code
investigation consists generally of the
following steps: (1) Proceeding on the spot,
(2)
Ascertainment
of
facts
and
circumstances of the case, (3)Discovery
and arrest of the suspected offender, (4)
Collection of evidence relating to the
commission of the offence which may
consist of (a) the examination of various
persons (including the accused) and the
reduction of their statements into writing, if
the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of
places of seizure of things considered
necessary of the investigation and to be
produced at the trial and (5) Formation of
the opinion as to whether on the material
collected there is case to place the accused
before a magistrate for trial and if so taking
the necessary steps for the same by filing of
a charge-sheet under section 173...... It is
also clear that the final steps in the
investigation, viz.., the formation of the
opinion as to whether or not there is a case
to place the accused on trial is to be that of
the officer in-charge of the police station."

21. Para No.15 of the judgment in the
case of Mutharaju Satyananrayan vs.
Government of A.P. and others 1997
Cri.L.J. 3741 is as under:

15. Thus, from the principles laid
down in the above decisions, it is clear that
no other authority, except the officer incharge of police station, can form an
opinion as to whether on material collected
a case is made out to place the accused
before the Magistrate for trial. If the officer
in-charge of police station is of the opinion
and submits a final report to the effect that
no case is made out to send up the accused
for trial, no other authority has power to
direct him to change his opinion and
file/submit
a
charge-sheet
to
the
Magistrate. However, the Magistrate is
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under no obligation to accept the final
report of the police, if he does not agree
with the opinion formed by the police.

22. The powers of the police to
make further investigation after lying final
report is recognized under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. that is quoted as under :-

Nothing in this section shall be
deemed to preclude further investigation in
respect of an offence after a report under
sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate
and,
where
upon
such
investigation, the officer-in-charge of the
police station obtains further evidence, oral
or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports
regarding such evidence in the form
prescribed; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be,
apply in relation to such report or reports as
they apply in relation to a report forwarded
under sub-section (2).

23. This Section confers express
and specific power upon the officer
incharge of Police Station to carry on
further
investigation
even
after
the
cognizance is taken by the court, while
exercising of powers under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. There is no right to direct the
investigating officer for fresh investigation
or re-investigation. If direction for further
investigation is made the investigating
officer will proceed further investigation,
form his opinion on the material collected
during the course of investigation. No
authority can direct the Investigating
Officer either to file charge sheet or final
report therefore there is no power express
or implied, conferred under the code on
supervising authority of police to direct the
investigating officer either to file charge
sheet or final report and he cannot form his
own opinion in this regard and direct the
investigating officer to do the same.

24. To sum up, this Court is of the
view that the formation of opinion by
Superintendent of Police for filing charge
sheet in the case and communicating his
order to the investigating officer for
compliance
cannot
be
said
to
be
inconformity with the provisions of law
but it may amount to interference in the
fair investigation of the case that is
fundamental right of the accused as
established under Articles 14, 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India, therefore,
charge sheet filed by investigating officer
in compliance of illegal order passed by
supervisory authority, the Superintendent
of Police cannot be said to be legal. If
prosecution is allowed to continue on
such charge sheet filed in compliance of
illegal order of supervising authority, it
will amount to abuse of process of the
court.

25. Accordingly, this application is
allowed and the charge sheet alongwith
entire proceedings of the case is, hereby,
quashed.
---------
(2025) 2 ILRA 138
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6694 of 2019

Bhagwati Sharan Dwivedi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Chandan Srivastava, Yogesh Somvanshi