Virendra Yadav Urf Tuntun and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Ajay Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶11

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash chargesheet dated 05.11.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.08.2025 along with summoning order dated 19.02.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.5201 of 2023 (State Vs. Ramkshatri and others), arising out of Case Crime No.09 of 2023 under Section 147, 323, 325, 504 IPC, P.S. Barwapatti, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar.

¶12

Brief facts of the present case are that initially opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR bearing Case Crime No.09 of 2023 against applicant nos.1 to 3 and four other named person whereas applicant no.4, namely, Ravindra Yadav was not named in the FIR. After registration of said FIR, inquiry was initiated which culminated into submission of chargesheet on dated 25.03.2023 against co-accused persons under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504 IPC only and names of applicant nos.1 to 3 was excluded by the concerned Investigating Officer on the basis of their non presence at the place of incident. Upon submission of chargesheet dated 25.03.2023, opposite party no.2 preferred protest petition under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. which was rejected and cognizance of offence was taken up by learned court concerned vide order dated 28.06.2023. Being aggrieved with the said order, opposite party no.2 preferred revision which was also rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Kushinagar vide order dated 05.09.2023. Thereafter, charges were framed against co-accused persons, namely, Ramkshatri Yadav, Satendra Yadav, Arjun @ Ramtirat, Kanhaiya Yadav and Kripa Shankar Yadav on

¶13

NA528 No. 41197 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

dated 16.05.2024 under Section 147, 323, 325, 504 IPC.

¶16

Thereafter, daughter of opposite party no.2, namely, Km. Savita Yadav preferred application on dated 08.07.2024 under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar seeking further investigation whereupon the Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar passed direction of further investigation on dated 08.07.2024. In pursuance of the said direction, further investigation was initiated and the concerned Investigating Officer again recorded the additional statements of informant/opposite party no.2 along with other witnesses and thereafter submitted supplementary chargesheet on dated 05.11.2024 whereupon, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence vide impugned order dated 12.08.2025 against applicants herein under Section147, 323, 325, 504 IPC. It appears from the record that applicant no.4, namely, Ravindra Yadav was neither named in the FIR nor his name was also taken by the informant as well as witnesses mentioned in the chagesheet dated 25.03.2023.

¶17

While challenging the supplementary chargesheet and cognizance order dated 12.08.2025 along with entire proceedings of the present case in pursuance of applicants herein, learned counsel for applicants raised legal arguments that once the charges have been framed, Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar was not having the authority to pass order for further investigation without leave of the concerned court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicants placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya Vs. State of Gujrat [AIR 2020 SC (Criminal) 2020] .

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but did not dispute the fact that without seeking permission from the concerned, further investigation was conducted which is also apparent from the instructions received by learned AGA. The said instructions are taken on record.

¶19

After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court notes that the power of the investigation agency to order further investigation in any criminal case is derived from the aegis of Section 173(8) CrPC (also refer to Section 193(9) BNSS), which is reproduced as follows:

¶20

"..(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, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further

¶21

NA528 No. 41197 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding, such evidence in the form 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)."

¶24

Thus, the powers of the investigation agency for further investigation are not in dispute herein. However, what catches attention here and which is also the crux of the controversy in the present case, is which authority can pass an order directing the investigation agency to undertake further investigation under Section 173(8).

¶25

The issue regarding the procedure to be followed for directing further investigation in a case has been dealt by this Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali [(2013) 5 SCC 762] , wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court while dealing with the contours of Section 173(8) relating to further investigation, propounded that the police ought to follow the procedure of seeking permission from the Court to conduct "further investigation" and file a supplementary chargesheet. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment are reproduced as under:

¶26

".....40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the various judgments as aforeindicated, we would state the following conclusions in regard to the powers of a Magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code:

¶27

40.1. The Magistrate has no power to direct "reinvestigation" or "fresh investigation" (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of a police report.

¶28

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.

¶29

40.3. The view expressed in Sub-para 40.2 above is in conformity with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant Singh case [Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 :

¶30

1985 SCC (Cri) 267] by a three-Judge Bench and thus in conformity with the doctrine of precedent.

¶31

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

¶32

NA528 No. 41197 of 2025

¶33

4

¶34

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).

¶35

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.

¶36

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. This approach has been approved by this Court in a number of judgments. This as such would support the view that we are taking in the present case……" add 49 and 50 (Emphasis Supplied)

¶37

In this very judgment, Hon'ble the Apex Court, while noting that although there is no explicit mandate under Section 173(8) CrPC to seek the leave of the Court before conducting further investigation, nevertheless, over time, a practice has been developed to seek permission of the Court. Therefore, the practice of seeking the leave of the Court will have to be read into the provisions of Section 173(8), and it is essentially a prerequisite for directing further investigation. Hon'ble the Apex Court therein held as follows:

¶38

"…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 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

¶39

NA528 No. 41197 of 2025

¶40

5

¶41

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.

¶42

50. Such a view can be supported from two different points of view: firstly, through the doctrine of precedent, as aforenoticed, since quite often the courts have taken such a view, and, secondly, the investigating agencies which have also so understood and applied the principle. The matters which are understood and implemented as a legal practice and are not opposed to the basic rule of law would be good practice and such interpretation would be permissible with the aid of doctrine of contemporanea expositio. Even otherwise, to seek such leave of the court would meet the ends of justice and also provide adequate safeguard against a suspect/accused…." (Emphasis Supplied)

¶43

The proposition of the law laid down in the case of Vinay Tyagi (supra) has been further affirmed by the Three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya (supra) .

¶44

Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar situation in the case of Peethambaran Versus State Of Kerala & Anr., reported in the (2024) 16 SCC 65 , wherein the District Police Chief, i.e., Superintendent of Police, ordered further investigation, has quashed the order passed by the District Police Chief and held that the power to order further investigation rests either with the Magistrate concerned or a higher court, but not with an investigation agency.

¶45

Recently, in a similar matter, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others [2026 INSC 120] , decided on 04.02.2026, has held that while passing orders directing further investigation without seeking leave of the Court, concerned Superintendent of Police has acted in complete defiance of the procedure laid down under the law. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶46

"28. In light of the legal position as settled by this Court through the above judgments, it is safe to say that the power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned. In the event, the police/ investigation agency is of the opinion that further investigation is necessary in any particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon them to file an appropriate application before the

¶47

NA528 No. 41197 of 2025

¶48

6

¶49

Magistrate/Court, without directing an order for further investigation by themselves. Once such an application is filed by the investigation agency, the Magistrate/Court would apply its judicial mind, in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and the reasons demonstrated by the investigating agency, in order to exercise its discretion for exercise of its power to decide whether or not further investigation is to be ordered under the purview of Section 173(8) CrPC.

¶50

31. Thus, it is amply clear that the Superintendent of Police acted in complete defiance of the procedure laid down under the law while passing orders directing further investigation without seeking leave of the Court. It is an unbecoming conduct from the officer of such a rank to exercise unfettered powers, in excess of its jurisdiction, thereby undermining the authority vested in the Court of law."

¶51

In the instant matter also, order for further investigation has been passed by Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar without leave of the learned court concerned and as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶52

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, chargesheet dated 05.11.2024 and cognizance/summoning order dated 12.08.2025 along with summoning order dated 19.02.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.5201 of 2023 (State Vs. Ramkshatri and others), arising out of Case Crime No.09 of 2023 under Section 147, 323, 325, 504 IPC, P.S. Barwapatti, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, are hereby quashed. In addition to that, order dated 08.07.2024 passed by Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar directing further investigation over the application preferred at the behest of daughter of opposite party no.2, is also quashed.

¶53

Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed in part .

¶54

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the concerned police authority to prefer fresh application seeking leave of learned court concerned for conducting further investigation.

¶55

March 18, 2026 Vivek Kr.

¶56

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶57

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virendra Yadav Urf Tuntun and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Yadav Urf Tuntun and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahid and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anju Gupta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sufiyan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitu Alias Jitendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Rev. Fr. Vineet Vincent Pereira Alias Father Vineet Vinicent Paresh Vs State of U.P. and Another