Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court has said that further investigation in a case where final report has been filed can be initiated with an order by a court only. This power does not rest with the investigating agency, it added.

A bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol said the requirement of permission for further investigation or to file a supplementary report is accepted within law and is therefore required to be complied with. 

The apex court set aside the Kerala High Court's judgement of November 6, 2019 and quashed a criminal case against Peethambaran for cheating complainant for Rs 3.83 lakh in name of securing jobs in Kottayam Rubber Board as clerk.

The police filed a final report stating the complainant could not produce documents with regard to financial transactions.

However, an Inspector of Police conducted further investigation on the order by District Police Chief Kottayam and filed another final report.

Dealing with an appeal against the order declining to quash the case, the bench highlighted distinction between further investigation and fresh investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation, saying that the former is a continuation of the previous investigation and is done on the basis of discovery of fresh material, whereas the latter can only be done when there is a definite order of the court to that effect which must state the reason as to why the previous investigation is incapable of being acted upon. 

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgements in 'Minu Kumari v. State of Bihar' (2006) and 'Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI' (2001), the bench said, the two cases make it amply clear that a magistrate has the power to order further investigation, while fresh investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation fall into the purview of the jurisdiction of a higher court. 

In the present case, the court said, it is clear that Inspector of Police, Vaikom conducted further investigation as per order, passed by a police officer and not by any duly empowered judicial officer.

"The Chief Police Officer of a district is the Superintendent of Police who is an officer of the Indian Police Service. Needless to state, an order from the District Police Chief is not the same as an order issued by the concerned Magistrate," the bench said.

Citing the cases of 'Vinay Tyagi V. Irshad Ali' (2013) and 'Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar and  Ors' (2013), the bench said it was held that there is no specific requirement to seek leave of the court for further investigation or to file a supplementary report but investigation agencies, have not only understood it to be so but have also adopted the same as a legal requirement. 

"The doctrine of contemporanea exposito aids such an interpretation of matters which have been long understood and implemented in a particular manner to be accepted into the interpretive process. In other words, the requirement of permission for further investigation or to file a supplementary report is accepted within law and is therefore required to be complied with," the bench said.

The bench said in the facts at hand, it is clear that such a permission was never taken, granted or ordered. 

"Consequently, FR -II is without basis. In FR- I it has been stated that in the absence of any documents in respect of the financial transactions, the instant case may be treated as a false case. This, then would necessarily imply that after due investigation conducted by a duly authorized person, the conclusion is that the ingredients of the section mentioned in the FIR have not been met and no case is made out," the bench said.

The court declared that the District Police Chief, Kottayam could not have ordered further investigation, as that power rests either with the concerned magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency. 

Case Title: PEETHAMBARAN vs. STATE OF KERALA & ANR.