Police Cannot Order Further Investigation Without Court’s Leave Under Section 173(8) CrPC: Supreme Court Clarifies

Case Name: Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 120
Date of Judgment/Order: 04 February 2026
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Held: The Supreme Court held that although Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits further investigation even after submission of a final report, such further investigation can only be undertaken with the leave of the Magistrate or competent court. The police or executive authorities, including senior officers such as the Superintendent of Police or the State Government, have no independent authority to direct further investigation once a closure report has been accepted by the court. Any such direction issued without judicial approval is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Summary: An FIR was registered in 2013 alleging offences under Sections 376D, 352, 504 and 506 IPC. After investigation, a closure report was filed in 2014 citing contradictions and lack of supporting evidence. The Judicial Magistrate accepted the closure report in 2015 after issuing notice to the informant, who did not file any protest petition. Nearly three years later, on the basis of proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission, the State Government directed further investigation by the CBCID. The Superintendent of Police issued communications in 2019 and 2021 directing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without any prior order from the Magistrate. Although an application was subsequently filed before the Magistrate seeking permission, no order granting such permission was passed. The High Court dismissed the accused’s challenge to these communications. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 173(8) CrPC and relied upon precedents including Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, and Peethambaran v. State of Kerala to reiterate that the long-standing judicial practice of seeking court permission before conducting further investigation must be treated as a legal requirement. The Court distinguished Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, clarifying that constitutional courts may direct fresh or de novo investigation, but the investigating agency itself cannot bypass the Magistrate.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 20.11.2023, and quashed the communications dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 directing further investigation. The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the pending criminal revision or any other proceeding arising from the FIR, and directed that such proceedings be decided independently on their own merits. Pending applications were disposed of.