Poonam v. Manoj and others), arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akash Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned AGA representing state-respondent No. 1, and perused the record.

2. The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS beseeching the quashing of impugned order dated 14.5.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Siddharth Nagar in F.R. No. 263 of 2022 (Poonam Vs. Manoj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, under Sections 354(Ka), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kathela Samay Mata, District Siddharth Nagar, whereby learned court below has directed for further investigation of the matter.

3. FIR, being Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, dated 9.4.2022, has been registered, based on order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, showing the date of incident dated 3.8.2021, wherein first informant/complainant has been molested in the office room of school by the main accused. She has allegedly been abused with a caste based slur; thus, she felt embarrassed and awkward in presence of other employees. After due investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the final report 29.4.2022, under Section 173(2) CrPC. Having been aggrieved with the aforesaid final report, the first informant (respondent No. 2) has filed the protest petition. During pendency of the protest petition, Circle Officer, Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, has moved an application dated 8.10.2022 seeking permission to further investigate the matter under section 173(8)CrPC on the ground that statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC and the statement of other relevant witnesses could not be taken by the Investigating Officer. Having found substance in the merits of the application dated 8.10.2022 submitted by the Circle Officer, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Siddharth Nagar has allowed the aforesaid application and, accordingly, rejected the final report, and issued a direction for further investigation in the matter in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, there is no justification for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The Investigating Officer has taken the statement of all the witnesses and completed investigation as per law. He has emphasized the order dated 12.5.2022 (Annexure No. 6) passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissing the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5073 of 2022 on the ground that a final report had been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that instant application assailing the direction for further investigation is not maintainable in the eye of law. He has emphasized the explanation submitted by the Investigating Officer to the query made by the court concerned, wherein he has made a regret for not recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC. It is next contended that no legal ground is made out to entertain the instant application; therefore, instant application may be dismissed, being misconceived and devoid of merits.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it manifests that learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act has passed an order for further investigation of the matter under Section 173(8) of CrPC, while allowing the application dated 8.10.2022 filed by the Circle Officer, Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. denotes explicit power of police Officer concerned to conduct a further investigation even after filing the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. after post cognizance stage he can do so with the permission of the court. In the matter of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2010 AIR SCW 5126, Hon'ble the Apex Court had an occasion to look into the scope of further investigation and it was so held that : "The Scheme of investigation, particularly, Section 173 (8), provides for further investigation and not of re- investigation. Therefore, if the Court, comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner with an object of helping a party, the Court may direct for further investigation and ordinarily not for re-investigation. The expression "ordinarily" means normally and it is used where there can be an exception. Thus, in the exceptional circumstances, the Court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if considers necessary, it may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances."

7. In the matter of State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hemendhra Reddy & Another, Etc., 2023 SCC Online SC 515 (Criminal Appeal Nos.1300 - 1302 of 2023, decided on April 28, 2023), Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the power of the Court and investigating agency in respect of the matter relating to further investigation. It has been held that even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. Though the order passed by the Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. It was further clarified that further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further elucidated the nature and scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C. in the matter of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 and held that further investigation is in continuation of and supplemental to preliminary investigation. Its basis is discovery of fresh evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that further investigation report should be dealt with as a part of preliminary report and both the reports to be read conjointly.

9. In the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada V. Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2332 wherein it was clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173 (8). Even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. In such situation power of Court to direct police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173 (8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering it with burden of searching for all potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard.

10. Applying the ratio held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above, in the giving circumstances of the present case, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. In his application dated 8.10.2022, justifiable ground has been taken by the Circle Officer while seeking a direction for further investigation of the matter under Section 173(8) CrPC. At this stage, no prejudice is caused to the present applicant, who can participate in the further investigation of the matter in compliance of the order impugned dated 14.5.2024. There is no abuse of process of law in passing the order dated 14.5.2025. No ground is made out to entertain the instant application in order to secure the ends of justice.

11. As such, instant application, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to the cost. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akash Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned AGA representing state-respondent No. 1, and perused the record.

2. The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS beseeching the quashing of impugned order dated 14.5.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Siddharth Nagar in F.R. No. 263 of 2022 (Poonam Vs. Manoj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, under Sections 354(Ka), 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kathela Samay Mata, District Siddharth Nagar, whereby learned court below has directed for further investigation of the matter.

3. FIR, being Case Crime No. 56 of 2022, dated 9.4.2022, has been registered, based on order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC, showing the date of incident dated 3.8.2021, wherein first informant/complainant has been molested in the office room of school by the main accused. She has allegedly been abused with a caste based slur; thus, she felt embarrassed and awkward in presence of other employees. After due investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted the final report 29.4.2022, under Section 173(2) CrPC. Having been aggrieved with the aforesaid final report, the first informant (respondent No. 2) has filed the protest petition. During pendency of the protest petition, Circle Officer, Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar, has moved an application dated 8.10.2022 seeking permission to further investigate the matter under section 173(8)CrPC on the ground that statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC and the statement of other relevant witnesses could not be taken by the Investigating Officer. Having found substance in the merits of the application dated 8.10.2022 submitted by the Circle Officer, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Siddharth Nagar has allowed the aforesaid application and, accordingly, rejected the final report, and issued a direction for further investigation in the matter in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, there is no justification for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. The Investigating Officer has taken the statement of all the witnesses and completed investigation as per law. He has emphasized the order dated 12.5.2022 (Annexure No. 6) passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissing the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5073 of 2022 on the ground that a final report had been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that instant application assailing the direction for further investigation is not maintainable in the eye of law. He has emphasized the explanation submitted by the Investigating Officer to the query made by the court concerned, wherein he has made a regret for not recording the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC. It is next contended that no legal ground is made out to entertain the instant application; therefore, instant application may be dismissed, being misconceived and devoid of merits.

6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it manifests that learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act has passed an order for further investigation of the matter under Section 173(8) of CrPC, while allowing the application dated 8.10.2022 filed by the Circle Officer, Shohratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar. Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. denotes explicit power of police Officer concerned to conduct a further investigation even after filing the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. after post cognizance stage he can do so with the permission of the court. In the matter of Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2010 AIR SCW 5126, Hon'ble the Apex Court had an occasion to look into the scope of further investigation and it was so held that : "The Scheme of investigation, particularly, Section 173 (8), provides for further investigation and not of re- investigation. Therefore, if the Court, comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner with an object of helping a party, the Court may direct for further investigation and ordinarily not for re-investigation. The expression "ordinarily" means normally and it is used where there can be an exception. Thus, in the exceptional circumstances, the Court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if considers necessary, it may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances."

7. In the matter of State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hemendhra Reddy & Another, Etc., 2023 SCC Online SC 515 (Criminal Appeal Nos.1300 - 1302 of 2023, decided on April 28, 2023), Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the power of the Court and investigating agency in respect of the matter relating to further investigation. It has been held that even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. Though the order passed by the Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. It was further clarified that further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further elucidated the nature and scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C. in the matter of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762 and held that further investigation is in continuation of and supplemental to preliminary investigation. Its basis is discovery of fresh evidence. Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that further investigation report should be dealt with as a part of preliminary report and both the reports to be read conjointly.

9. In the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada V. Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2332 wherein it was clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court that power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173 (8). Even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. In such situation power of Court to direct police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173 (8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering it with burden of searching for all potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard.

10. Applying the ratio held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above, in the giving circumstances of the present case, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. In his application dated 8.10.2022, justifiable ground has been taken by the Circle Officer while seeking a direction for further investigation of the matter under Section 173(8) CrPC. At this stage, no prejudice is caused to the present applicant, who can participate in the further investigation of the matter in compliance of the order impugned dated 14.5.2024. There is no abuse of process of law in passing the order dated 14.5.2025. No ground is made out to entertain the instant application in order to secure the ends of justice.

11. As such, instant application, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed with no order as to the cost. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad