The Allahabad High Court has held that the acceptance of a final report by a magistrate does not prevent the investigating agency from conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court dismissed a challenge to an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, permitting further investigation in a nearly two-decade-old murder case and also held that an accused has no general right to be heard at the investigation stage.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh said further investigation can legally continue even after a final report has been accepted by the court. The bench also observed that the earlier acceptance order need not be withdrawn or reviewed before such investigation begins.
Nearly Two-Decade-Old Murder Case Reopened
The case arose from an FIR registered on August 6, 2005, alleging that the petitioner and several others had killed the complainant’s father and shot and wounded his mother, who died while being taken to hospital.
During the investigation, however, the complainant filed an affidavit before the magistrate stating that he had not witnessed the incident and that unknown persons had fired at his parents. He also stated that the petitioner and others had been falsely implicated. Statements of the complainant and his sister were later recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, in which they said the petitioner had not committed the murder and that they did not know who had killed their parents.
Finding no evidence against the petitioner, the investigating officer submitted a final report in February 2006. The report was accepted by the competent court in April 2006.
Nearly two decades later, the complainant approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, seeking further investigation. The police thereafter sought permission to proceed. On August 5, 2025, the Chief Judicial Magistrate held that permission from the magistrate was not required for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The investigating officer then proceeded on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police.
The petitioner challenged the move before the High Court, arguing that the matter had already attained finality after acceptance of the final report and that reopening it after 20 years without new material would effectively amount to re-investigation or a de novo investigation. The petitioner also argued that police could not resume the investigation on their own.
High Court Says Further Investigation Remains Legally Permissible
The state opposed the petition and argued that Section 173(8) of the CrPC does not bar further investigation merely because a closure or final report has already been filed and accepted.
Relying on Section 173(8) and Supreme Court decisions including Vinay Tyagi, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya, State of Rajasthan v. Aruna Devi and K. Chandrashekhar v. State of Kerala, the High Court held that further investigation remains legally permissible even after acceptance of a final report.
The court specifically concluded that there is no bar on further investigation under Section 173(8) after acceptance of a final report filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.
Justice Singh also observed that although it is better for police to inform the court and obtain formal permission before proceeding with further investigation, the statutory power to conduct such investigation continues to remain with the police.
The court further noted that the case was not simply an attempt to restart an investigation without any fresh material. It took note of the complainant’s allegations that he and his siblings were minors at the time of the incident, had allegedly been held hostage by the accused and had been forced to sign affidavits and other papers. It was also alleged that although they were present at the scene, police had not recorded their statements.
The bench held that these assertions constituted new information and evidence brought on record after the complainant’s application. It therefore found that proceedings could continue as further investigation under Section 173(8), rather than as a prohibited re-investigation.
Accused Has No General Right to Be Heard During Investigation
The High Court also considered whether an accused can challenge the manner in which further investigation is being carried out at the investigation stage.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, the court held that during an investigation under Chapter XII of the CrPC, an accused has no general right to be informed or heard.
The bench said that at the investigation stage, the accused has no right to intervene merely to question how police are conducting further investigation. It found that the petitioner’s challenge was based on a misunderstanding of the legal position.
The court ultimately held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had committed no illegality in passing the impugned order and dismissed the application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for lack of merit.
At the same time, the High Court said the investigating officer should ensure that the further investigation is conducted in a fair, prudent and transparent manner.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
