Further Investigation Permissible Even After Closure Report; Does Not Attract Principle Of Double Jeopardy: Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court in its judgment dated April 28, 2023, held that there is no bar against conducting a further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, 1973 after submission of the final report/closure report and since investigation cannot be equated with prosecution or punishment, the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution is not attracted in such cases.

A division bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Surya Kant, while allowing the appeals by CBI, observed,

“(i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted.

(ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed. 36

(iii) Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation.

(iv) There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.”

Clarifying the prime consideration for “further investigation”, the Top Court under Para 50 of the judgment placed reliance on Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347, to hold that the hands of investigating agency must not be tied down on the ground of mere delay – in other words, the fact that further investigation may cause delay in trial should not restrict further investigation as the ultimate goal is to arrive at the truth and do substantial justice.

Further Investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, 1973:

• In Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 it was held that further investigation is a continuation of the earlier investigation – mere supplemental or additional to the earlier investigation. When a final report is forwarded to the Magistrate, the Magistrate may either (i) accept the report and take cognizance over it (ii) may disagree and take cognizance over the material submitted by the investigating officer (iii) may disagree and direct further investigation (iv) may treat protest petition as a complaint and proceed as per provisions of Section 200 and 202 CrPC.
• Further Investigation and Re-investigation are clearly different concepts – In Ramachandran v. R. Udhaykumar, (2008) 5 SCC 413 while relying on the earlier decision in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 223, it was held that a further investigation is the continuation of an earlier investigation rather than a new one that would start completely and overwrite the earlier investigation. This conclusion was also influenced by sub-section (8) which stipulates that the investigating agency must submit to the magistrate a “further” report, not a new report, regarding the “further” evidence gathered during such an investigation.

Case Title: CBI v. Hemendhra Reddy