Subsequent Police Report Not Invalid Merely Because Court's Permission For Further Investigation Was Not Taken: Kerala High Court
Manju Elsa Isac
4 Nov 2024 3:45 PM IST
While hearing plea to quash an FIR containing allegations of attempt to murder, the Kerala High Court held that an additional or a subsequent police report cannot be held as invalid just because the investigation officer did not seek the court's permission before conducting further investigation.
In doing so, the high court while emphasizing the need to obtain the court's permission as a practice, however held that even in the absence of such permission, the final report is legally sustainable.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that though the practice of seeking permission before conducting further investigation is upheld by judicial decisions, none of those decisions hold that a final report based on such further investigation is "non-est". It said,
“Thus obtaining formal permission to conduct further investigation is recognized in law and the same has to be obtained invariably as a matter of practice, when an Investigating Officer fails to seek permission before conducting further investigation, the investigation and the report could not be held as non-est for the said reason alone.”
Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C enables further investigation in a crime after the final report is submitted. The section does not require the investigation officer to take the permission of the court before conducting further investigation in the matter. However, there are a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court which held that the Investigating officer has to take permission of the Court before further investigation in order "to keep comity between the court and the Investigating Agency".
The high court while referring to the Supreme Court's decisions observed that no ratio has been laid down in any of the decisions to hold that "when a supplementary/additional final report has been filed on the basis of a further investigation, without obtaining formal permission would make the same non-est".
It noted that in BNSS, the proviso to Section 193(9) says that further investigation may be conducted during the trial with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of 90 days which can be extended with the Court's permission.
In this case, the petitioner moved the High Court to quash the proceedings pending against her in a crime registered against her for allegedly being in an "unlawful assembly" and attacking the wife of the complainant. She submitted before the Court that she was not named in the FIR but she was arraigned as an accused subsequently based on a further investigation held without the permission of the Court after the final report was filed.
She alleged that she was arraigned as an accused as she had filed a complaint against the complainant and 8 others saying that they had attacked her on the same day before the alleged crime which the present case is dealing with. The FIR against which the petitioner moved for quashing was registered under IPC sections 447(criminal trespass), 323(voluntarily causing hurt), 341(wrongful restraint), 324(Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 325(Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 326(Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 307(attempt to murder).
The Court noted that she was arraigned as an accused based on the statements of witnesses the police recorded during further investigation. It further said that the supplementary/additional final report is "legally sustainable".
"Be it so, inclusion of the petitioner as 6th accused in this crime is with the aid of necessary materials. Now the trial court accepted both the final reports and took cognizance of the matter. In such a case, it could not be held at this stage that the petitioner is innocent and she got impleaded as additional 6th respondent without any materials or in derogation of the procedure of law. Thus the prayer herein would necessarily fail," the court said while dismissing the quashing petition.
Case Title: Asha v State of Kerala and Another
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates P. J. Justine, C. H. Abdul Rasac
Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Adv. M. P. Prasanth
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 7975 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
