A.N. Jindal, J.@mdashBy way of this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.), the Petitioner Charanjit Singh alias
Bittu has sought quashing of the order dated 22.10.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, rejecting the report
of the police submitted u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C., vide which, the police put the name of the Petitioner in column No. 2 as innocent person.
2. The facts in the background of the case are that on the death of Jaspal Singh, a case was registered against Brahm Dutt, Devinder Kumar,
Charanjit Singh (Petitioner) and some other persons vide FIR No. 34 dated 10.6.2004 under Sections 306, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). Investigation was conducted and challan was filed against six persons, including the Petitioner, in the court of
the ilaqa Magistrate. However, later on, after an enquiry was conducted by the S.P. (Headquarters) under the orders of D.I.G. Border Range,
vide supplementary report u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C., filed by the Officer in-charge of Police Station Khalra, the name of the Petitioner (Charanjit Singh)
was placed in column No. 2. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti vide his order dated 22.10.2005 (Annexure P-3) rejected the said
report submitted by the police u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C, solely on the ground that the police had no power to further investigate the matter, without the
prior permission of the court concerned. The Petitioner has challenged the said order by way of the present petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It needs mention that the supplementary challan was presented after the earlier challan had already been submitted in the Court. The Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate while making a reference of two judgments, i.e., 2002(2) RCR 12 (P&H) and 1998(2) RCR 719 (SC) observed
that no further investigation could be conducted without prior permission of the Court when the court had taken cognizance of the case.
5. Before laying my hands over the application of the aforesaid judgments, I need to reproduce Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, which deals with powers
of further investigation by the police in the case, as under:
173(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, whereupon, 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 from 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)."" Powers of the Police Officer to investigate the case have been defined u/s 156 Cr.P.C, which read as under:
156. Police officer''s power to investigate cognizable cases - (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a magistrate,
investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire
into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such
officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered u/s 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
6. After the investigation is completed, the Investigating Agency is required to submit the charge report against the accused u/s 173 Cr.P.C, and
the court is to try the case on the said charge report, submitted to it and it has nothing to do with the further investigation of the case. The police
has been vested with the powers of further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C., irrespective of the fact that reinvestigation could be conducted under
the orders of the Court, but no embargo has been placed over the powers of the police for further investigating the case. From bare reading of
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, it is evident that even after submission of investigation report under this Section, if the police comes across further
evidence, oral or documentary, then in order to facilitate the trial and to enable the Court to reach the truth, it is vested with all powers to further
investigate the matter, but cannot investigate afresh or reinvestigate the same. The dictionary meaning of ''further'' when used as an adjective is
''additional'', ''more'', ''supplemental''. ''Further investigation'' certainly is continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or re-
investigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. The provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C, clearly
envisage that on further investigation, the investigating agency has to forward a further investigation report and not a fresh report regarding the
further evidence obtained during such investigation and not fresh report or reports regarding further investigation obtained during such investigation.
Further investigation is a continuation of such investigation, which culminates in a further police report. To put it differently, if during the further
investigation, the police finds some evidence against an additional accused or it finds some of the accused innocent, then the police could submit
such a report to the Court and it is only upto the Court, which is to decide from the earlier report as well as the later report and also the evidence
put up before it by the police, as to whether there was sufficient evidence for trial against them. No doubt, the Trial Court has relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in case K. Chandrasekhar and Anr. v. State of Kerala, 1998(2) RCR(Crl.) 719 (SC): 1998(2) RCR 720(SC), but the
same is of no help to the prosecution, rather, it has clarified and created a distinction in the words, ''further investigation'' and ''re-investigation'' or
''fresh investigation'' of the case and observed that further investigation in the case notwithstanding any consent, has been obtained from the court,
is not bad. Such proposition again arose before the Apex Court in a recent judgment delivered in case, Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of
Gujarat and others, 2004(2) RCR(Crl.) 463 (SC): 2004(2) Apex Crl. 609 (SC): JT 2004 (4) 305, wherein, it was observed as under:
10. Coming to the question whether a further investigation is warranted, the hands of the investigating agency or the Court should not be tied down
on the ground that further investigation may delay the trial, as the ultimate object is a to arrive at the truth.
11. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code permits further investigation, and even de hors any direction from the Courts 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.
12. In Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration), t 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 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 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.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case.
In Om Parkash Narang''s case (supra), the Apex Court had only expressed its desire in the circumstances of that case and the fact that
adjudication of the trial may not be delayed, to inform and seek permission of the court before proceeding for further investigation, but it never
intended to issue such mandate in every case having its own circumstances. That is why, the Apex Court repeated the observations to the following
effect:
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.
8. In the present case, the trial was at a very initial stage and the police had not done any fresh investigation by itself or through any other agency,
rather, it had conducted further investigation to make a deep probe into the matter and found that the Petitioner (Charanjit Singh), who was earlier
arrayed as an accused, was innocent. This may not be taken as end of road for Charanjit Singh. The accused is already before the Court on
account of the earlier report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., submitted two months prior to the filing of the next report i.e. 23.5.2007. The supplementary report
does not tie its hands for taking cognizance against him as the Court is vested with vast powers to proceed against him even u/s 190 Cr.C. Further,
the report submitted by the police u/s 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure could not be condemned merely for the reason that further investigation
was not conducted without the permission of the Court. In the case o Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, ,
the Apex Court laid down as under:
Sub-section (8) of Section 173of the Code permits further investigation, and even de hors 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 .
9. As such, it would not be inappropriate to hold that irrespective of the fact that the Court had taken cognizance of the matter, there was no
embargo on the powers of the police to further investigate the matter and the Court should not go by the technicalities of seeking or not seeking its
formal permission. The main object of the police while conducting investigation is to collect maximum evidence and reach the real culprit, so as to
bring them to book. So, is the main object of the trial, wherein, the Court is to scrutinise the evidence as collected by the police and punish the real
culprits. The Investigating Agency is not the final authority to decide, the fate of the accused, but it is to nominate one as innocent and the other as
culprit, but the ball is ultimately in the dominion of the court. It may further be observed that in the present case, the challan was just presented and
the court had not taken cognizance of the case, when the supplementary report u/s 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted by the
Investigating Agency. As such, the Trial Court fell into an error in holding the formal permission of the Court was required for further investigation
of the case. As a sequel of the above discussion. the present petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to
take into consideration the report submitted u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C, dated 23.7.2007 along with earlier report dated 23.5.2007 and, only then,
proceed in accordance with law.
The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 9.1.2008.