Bombay High Court
Sumit S/O Karan Singh Gautam And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 17 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12357
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 928 OF 2024
...
1] Sumit S/o Karan Singh Gautam,
Aged 38 years, Occ. Auto Dealer,
R/o. Malviya Nagar, Tumsar,
Tahsil Tumsar, District Bhandara 441912.
2] Imran S/o Abdul Haquie Turak,
Aged 33 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Azad Nagar, Tumsar, Tasil Tumsar,
District Bhandara 441912.
3] Ashish S/o Narendra Gajbhiye,
Aged 32 years, Occ. Auto Dealer,
R/o. Azad Nagar, Tumsar, Tasil Tumsar,
District Bhandara 441912.
4] Firozkhaa s/o Moharamkhaa Pathan,
Aged 35 yeas, Occ. Labour,
R/o. Azad Nagar, Tumsar, Tasil Tumsar,
District Bhandara 441912.
... PETITIONERS
--VERSUS--
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
2
Police Station Warthi,
Tahsil Mohadi, and District Bhandara.
... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.Saxena, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. B.M. Lonare, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2025.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners challenge the order dated
09/09/2024, wherein, the application filed by the prosecution
for seeking permission to file additional charge-sheet on record
is allowed and the permission is granted to submit
supplementary charge-sheet on record.
3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submit
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
that the Investigating Officer has not sought permission / leave
from the learned Magistrate for conducting the further
investigation. He further submits that there is no material
against the petitioners to connect them with the crime. Even if
the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer of the
informant is taken into consideration, the same does not
demonstrate that there is an overt act on the part of petitioners.
The original charge-sheet was filed on 12/01/2022, however,
the statement dated 12/01/2022 of Rahul Pandurang
Deshpande, who is the informant is not filed on record
alongwith original charge-sheet. It was submitted that with
mala fide intention, the Investigating Officer has implicated the
present petitioners in the crime. Lastly, he relied on the
Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi VS
Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and Others, (2013) 5 SCC 762, to
submit that if the leave is not sought from the learned
Magistrate, then the supplementary charge-sheet would not be
maintainable, and accordingly, he prayed to quash and set
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
aside the order dated 09/09/2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara.
4. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. submits that
admittedly the charge-sheet is filed on 12/01/2022, however,
thereafter, the statement of informant was recorded. He further
pointed out that the petitioners have sought anticipatory bail
and there is also sufficient evidence against the petitioners as
the incident was captured in the C.C.T.V. footage as well as in
the mobile phone. There were some serious lapses on the part
of the Investigating Officer, and therefore, the Court below,
while passing the order below Exh.82, in view of aforesaid
lapses directed the Superior Officer to take necessary action
against the Investigating Officer. Lastly, he submits that further
investigation is the continuation of the initial investigation, and
therefore, there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be
dismissed.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioners and
the learned A.P.P., it appears that the original charge-sheet was
filed on 12/01/2022, and on the same date, the statement of
the first informant was also recorded. There is no dispute
regarding the filing of the charge-sheet on 12/01/2022,
however, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that the statement of the informant was recorded on
the same day without there being any evidence against the
petitioners. It is true that the statement was recorded on
12/01/2022, however, whether it was recorded before or after
filing of the charge-sheet is a disputed question of fact and this
Court cannot go into same. The fact remains that the said
statement implicates the present petitioners.
6. Admittedly, the supplementary charge-sheet was filed
only after the Court granted permission on 09/09/2024 by
allowing the application of the Investigating Officer. The
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
no new material to justify the filing of the supplementary
charge-sheet deserves no consideration for the reason that the
record shows that the statement of the first informant recorded
on 12/01/2022, the details in respect of the present petitioners,
the list of witnesses to be examined, and the order granting
anticipatory bail was placed on record through the
supplementary charge-sheet. The incident which was captured
in the CCTV footage and in the mobile phone has already been
placed on record which is part of the original charge-sheet.
Prima facie, it appears that the Trial Court, after considering the
entire material that surfaced on record, has permitted to file the
supplementary charge-sheet on record. The Trial Court has held
that the purpose of the supplementary charge-sheet in the
present case is to include additional accused persons to try
them together with the original accused based on the same
evidence already presented and to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings, the application under Exh.82 is allowed permitting
to file supplementary charge-sheet on record. Whether the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
petitioners are involved in the crime or not and whether the
statement of the informant recorded on 12/01/2022, C.C.T.V.
footage and mobile recording are to be considered or not would
be based on the evidence which would be led by the
Prosecution and the same cannot be considered at this stage.
7. However, the right of the Investigating Officer to file
a supplementary charge-sheet cannot be curtailed. Further
investigation is the continuation of the earlier investigation.
Even if it is considered that the supplementary charge-sheet was
filed at a belated stage, that by itself is not sufficient to quash
the order granting permission to file the supplementary charge-
sheet. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinay
Tyagi (supra), paragraph 49, is reproduced below:-
"49. Now, we may examine another significant
aspect which is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have
been understood and applied by the courts and
investigating agencies. It is true that though there is no
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
specific requirement in the provisions of Section 173(8) of
the Code to conduct "further investigation" or file
supplementary report with the leave of the court, the
investigating agencies have not only understood but also
adopted it as a legal practice to seek permission of the
courts to conduct "further investigation" and file
"supplementary report" with the leave of the court, The
courts, in some of the decisions, have also taken a similar
view. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court
to conduct "further investigation" and/or to file a
"supplementary report" will have to be read into, and is a
necessary implication of the provisions of Section 173(8)
of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will
fully come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters
which are understood and implemented for a long time,
and such practice that is supported by law should be
accepted as part of the interpretative process."
It would also be useful to refer to the observations of
the Apex Court in the recent judgment of State Through Central
Bureau of Investigation VS Hemendhra Reddy and Another,
(2023) 16 SCC 779, wherein it is held that further investigation
dehors any direction from the Court, paragraph Nos. 60 to 68
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
are reproduced as under:-
"60. This Court in Hasanbhai11 held thus: (SCC pp.
350-51, paras 12-13)
"12. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code
permits further investigation, and even dehors any
direction from the court as such, it is open to the police
to conduct proper investigation, even after the court
took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a
police report earlier submitted. All the more so, if as in
this case, the Head of the Police Department also was
not satisfied of the propriety or the manner and nature
of investigation already conducted.
13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)
[(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1979 SC
1791] it was observed by this Court that further
investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because
cognizance has been taken by the court. When defective
investigation comes to light during course of trial, it
may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances
so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all
the more so in this case, that the police should inform
the court and seek formal permission to make further
investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of
being silent over the matter keeping in view only the
need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
actual offences found during course of proper
investigation is as much relevant, desirable and
necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by
the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if
there is necessity for further investigation, the same can
certainly be done as prescribed by law. The 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 as well as effective justice."
61. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration)
reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322, this Court held thus:
"21. As observed by us earlier, there was no
provision in the CrPC, 1898 which, expressly or by
necessary implication, barred the right of the police to
further investigate after cognizance of the case had been
taken by the Magistrate. Neither Section 173 nor
Section 190 lead us to hold that the power of the police
to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate
taking cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience
and preponderance of authority, permitted repeated
investigations on discovery of fresh facts. In our view,
notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance
of the offence upon a police report submitted under
Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
further investigate was not exhausted and the police
could exercise such right as often as necessary when
fresh information came to light. Where the police
desired to make a further investigation, the police could
express their regard and respect for the court by seeking
its formal permission to make further investigation."
62. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.S. Peter reported
in (2008) 2 SCC 383, this Court held thus:
"9. Indisputably, the law does not mandate
taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for
further investigation. Carrying out of a further
investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a
statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists
between further investigation and reinvestigation.
Whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is
necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not."
63. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and
Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441, this Court held as
follows:
"68. An order of further investigation in terms of
Section 173(8) of the Code by the State in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 36 thereof stands on a
different footing. The power of the investigating officer
to make further investigation in exercise of its statutory
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of the Code and at
the instance of the State having regard to Section 36
thereof read with Section 3 of the Police Act, 1861
should be considered in different contexts. Section
173(8) of the Code is an enabling provision. Only when
cognizance of an offence is taken, the learned
Magistrate may have some say. But, the restriction
imposed by judicial legislation is merely for the purpose
of upholding the independence and impartiality of the
judiciary. It is one thing to say that the court will have
supervisory jurisdiction to ensure a fair investigation, as
has been observed by a Bench of this Court in Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Cri) 440], correctness whereof is open to question, but
it is another thing to say that the investigating officer
will have no jurisdiction whatsoever to make any
further investigation without the express permission of
the Magistrate."
64. In Vinay Tyagi (supra), it was held that "further
investigation" in terms of Section 173(8) of the CrPC can be
made in a situation where the investigating officer obtains
further oral or documentary evidence after the final report
has been filed before the Court. The report on such further
investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC can be
termed as a supplementary report.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
65. In Vinay Tyagi (supra), it was held that: (SCC
p.790, para 40)
"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.
* * *
40.4. 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.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
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 charge-
sheet. ..."
66. In Vinubhai (supra); a three-Judge Bench of this
Court has endeavoured to lay at rest the controversy
enveloping the evasive issue of further investigation directed
by the Magistrate. This Court, speaking through Justice R.F.
Nariman, has laid down at Para 42 that: (SCC p. 39)
" 42. ... To say that a fair and just investigation
would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the
power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under
Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till
charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction
of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the
pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of
justice, as certain cases may cry out for further
investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly
arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty
person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a
narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the
Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable
to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section
2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed
hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
progress of a criminal case before the trial actually
commences. It would also be in the interest of justice
that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate
himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether
further investigation should or should not be ordered is
within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will
exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in
accordance with law."
It was also clarified that: (Vinubhai case5 , SCC
p.21, para 28)
"28. The "investigation" spoken of in Section
156(3) would embrace the entire process, which begins
with the collection of evidence and continues until
charges are framed by the Court, at which stage the trial
can be said to have begun.".
67. Thus, this Court, in conclusion, observed that,
"27. ... when Section 156(3) states that a Magistrate
empowered under Section 190 may order "such an
investigation", such Magistrate may also order further
investigation under Section 173(8), regard being had to
the definition of "investigation" contained in Section
2(h)."
68. Thus, in view of the law laid down by this Court
in the various decisions cited hereinabove, it is well settled
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
that sub section (8) of Section 173 of the CrPC permits
further investigation, and even dehors any direction from the
court, it is open to the police to conduct proper investigation,
even after the court takes cognizance of any offence on the
strength of a police report earlier submitted.
The same view is reiterated in the case of Bohatie
Devi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives VS. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, (2023) 16 SCC 349.
8. From the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments,
it can be concluded that though there is no specific requirement
under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to obtain leave of the Court
for conducting further investigation, however, it is a matter of
long-standing practice and a procedure of propriety to seek
permission of the Court to continue further investigation and
file supplementary charge-sheet. However, merely not obtaining
leave of the Court will not, by itself, vitiate the filing of the
supplementary charge-sheet, as it is a settled position of law
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
that it is a right of the Investigating Officer to further
investigate in respect of offence even after a report under Sub-
Section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. is forwarded to a Magistrate
and prior approval of the Magistrate is not required.
9. It could be seen from the supplementary charge-sheet
that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the
first informant, wherein, the names of the present petitioners
are apparent. If that is coupled with the CCTV footage, then
there appears to be sufficient material against the present
petitioners. The reasoning provided by the Trial Court for
permitting to file supplementary charge-sheet which is arraying
the present petitioners as new accused persons so as to prevent
multiplicity of proceedings is justified and in this view of the
matter, I do not find any error in the order of the Trial Court
passed below Exh.-82 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhandara, dated 09/09/2024. Accordingly, the present petition
is dismissed.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment Cr.WP-928-2024
It is needless to mention at this juncture that the Trial
Court shall not be influenced by the observations of this Court
while conducting the trial.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
