In Kulveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.

, Home and 2
Others. (2 JJ.)
The following (relevant portion) has been held in paras which are
extracted herebelow:-

“8. Relevant portion of Section 173 (1) and (8) of Code

of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) reads as
under :-
“173(1). Every investigation under this chapter shall be
completed without unnecessary delay.

XXXXXXXXX

(8).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 sub-sections (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).”

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while

considering questions posed before that court, has
considered in detail various aspects of the
investigation, as noted above. The following portions
from the judgement of Vinay Tyagi’s case (supra)
( paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
28, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 54 ) are required to
be referred to :-
XXXXXXXXX

15. A very wide power is vested in the investigating agency

to conduct further investigation after it has filed the report in
terms of Section 173(2). The legislature has specifically
used the expression ‘nothing in this section shall be
deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of
an offence after a report under Section 173(2) has
been forwarded to the Magistrate’, which
unambiguously indicates the legislative intent that
even after filing of a report before the court of
competent jurisdiction, the Investigating Officer can
still conduct further investigation and where, upon
such investigation, the officer in charge of a police
station gets further evidence, oral or documentary, he
shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or
reports regarding such evidence in the prescribed
form. In other words, the investigating agency is
competent to file a supplementary report to its
primary report in terms of Section 173(8). The
supplementary report has to be treated by the Court in
continuation of the primary report and the same provisions
of law i.e. sub-section (2) to sub-section (6) of Section 173
shall apply when the Court deals with such report.

XXXXXX

22. ‘Further investigation’ is where the Investigating Officer

obtains further oral or documentary evidence after the final
report has been filed before the Court in terms of Section
173(8). This power is vested with the Executive. It is the
continuation of a previous investigation and, therefore, is
understood and described as ‘further investigation’. The
scope of such investigation is restricted to the discovery of
further oral and documentary evidence. Its purpose is to
bring the true facts before the Court even if they are
discovered at a subsequent stage to the primary
investigation. It is commonly described as
‘supplementary report’. ‘Supplementary report’ would
be the correct expression as the subsequent
investigation is meant and intended to supplement the
primary investigation conducted by the empowered
police officer. Another significant feature of further
investigation is that it does not have the effect of
wiping out directly or impliedly the initial investigation
conducted by the investigating agency. This is a kind of
continuation of the previous investigation. The basis is
discovery of fresh evidence and in continuation of the same
offence and chain of events relating to the same occurrence
incidental thereto. In other words, it has to be understood in
complete contradistinction to a ‘reinvestigation’, ‘fresh’ or ‘de
novo’ investigation.

XXXXXX

40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the

various judgments as afore-indicated, we would state the
following conclusions in regard to the powers of a magistrate
in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and
Section 156(3) of the Code :

40.1. The Magistrate has no power to direct ‘reinvestigation’

or ‘fresh investigation’ (de novo) in the case initiated on the
basis of a police report.40.2. A Magistrate has the power to
direct ‘further investigation’ after filing of a police report in
terms of Section 173(6) of the Code.

40.2. A Magistrate has the power to direct ‘further

investigation’ after filing of a police report in terms of
Section 173(6) of the Code.

40.3. The view expressed in sub para 40.2 above is in

conformity with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant
Singh’s case (supra) by a three Judge Bench and thus in
conformity with the doctrine of precedent.

40.4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific

provision therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction by the
Magistrate. The language of Section 173(2) cannot be
construed so restrictively as to deprive the Magistrate of
such powers particularly in face of the provisions of Section
156(3) and the language of Section 173(8) itself. In fact,
such power would have to be read into the language of
Section 173(8).

40.5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it must

receive a construction which would advance the cause of
justice and legislative object sought to be achieved. It does
not stand to reason that the legislature provided
power of further investigation to the police even after
filing a report, but intended to curtail the power of the
Court to the extent that even where the facts of the
case and the ends of justice demand, the Court can
still not direct the investigating agency to conduct
further investigation which it could do on its own.

40.6. It has been a procedure of propriety that the police has

to seek permission of the Court to continue ‘further
investigation’ and file supplementary chargesheet. This
approach has been approved by this Court in a number of
judgments. This as such would support the view that we are
taking in the present case.

41. Having discussed the scope of power of the Magistrate

under Section 173 of the Code, now we have to examine the
kind of reports that are contemplated under the provisions of
the Code and/or as per the judgments of this Court. The first
and the foremost document that reaches the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate is the First Information Report. Then, upon
completion of the investigation, the police is required to file a
report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will be
appropriate to term this report as a primary report, as it is
the very foundation of the case of the prosecution before the
Court. It is the record of the case and the documents
annexed thereto, which are considered by the Court and
then the Court of the Magistrate is expected to exercise any
of the three options afore-noticed. Out of the stated options
with the Court, the jurisdiction it would exercise has to be in
strict consonance with the settled principles of law. The
power of the magistrate to direct ‘further
investigation’ is a significant power which has to be
exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to
achieve the ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and
unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the
investigating agency and the Court in its supervisory
capacity is required to ensure the same. Further
investigation conducted under the orders of the Court,
including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its
own accord and, for valid reasons, would lead to the
filing of a supplementary report. Such supplementary
report shall be dealt with as a part of the primary
report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of
Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such
reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.

14. ‘Further Investigation’ is provided under Section

173 (8) Cr.P.C. A very wide power is vested in the
investigating agency to conduct further investigation,
after it has filed the report in terms of sub Section (2)
of Section 173 Cr.P.C. In the course of ‘further
investigation’, the investigation obtains further oral
or documentary evidence. It is in continuation of the
previous investigation and therefore, is understood and
described as ‘further investigation’. The scope of such
investigation is restricted to the discovery of further
oral and documentary evidence. The purpose of ‘further
investigation’ is to bring true facts before the courts
even if they are discovered at a stage subsequent to
primary investigation. The report furnished after
further investigation is generally described or referred
to as ‘supplementary report’. A significant feature of
‘further investigation’ is that it does not have the effect
of wiping out directly or impliedly the initial
investigation, conducted by the investigating agency.
‘Further investigation’ is kind of continuation of the
previous investigation. ‘Further investigation’ therefore
is required to be understood in complete
contradistinction to a ‘reinvestigation’, ‘fresh’ or ‘de
novo’ investigation.
XXXXXXXXX

19. Perusal of the bare provision (Section 173(8)

Cr.P.C.), extracted above, also indicates that only
‘further investigation’ may be ordered by the
investigating agency or the Magistrate. Under the
circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that
respondent no.2 (Superintendent of Police, Bahriach)
had no jurisdiction to order ‘re-investigation’ in the
matter.”