Irrespective Of Rank, Police Officials Cannot Order Further Investigation During Trial Without Court's Permission: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that no police officer, irrespective of rank, can direct further investigation in a criminal case during the pendency of trial without first obtaining the permission of the court trying the case.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that this was a settled position of the law under Section 173(8) CrPC, however, now it has been expressly incorporated under Section 193(9) BNSS that prior permission of the Court would be required for the police to conduct a further investigation.
With this, the division bench quashed an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Crime and Headquarters, Kanpur Nagar, directing further investigation in a pending murder trial and allowed three connected writ petitions.
The writ petitions had contended that once the charge-sheet had been filed by the Police and the trial had commenced, the police could not have ordered further investigation without obtaining leave of the trial court.
During the hearing, the State relied upon an application dated December 17, 2025 moved by the Investigating Officer to contend that permission of the Court had been sought and granted. The High Court, however, rejected the submission after examining the application.
The Bench found that the application merely informed the trial court that the Joint Commissioner of Police had already directed further investigation and sought access to the case diary and other records. It was not an application seeking judicial permission to conduct further investigation.
Taking exception to the nature of the application and the words used therein, the Court remarked thus:
“In our considered opinion, the application dated 17.12.2025 is not at all an application seeking permission to further investigation made to Court. Rather, it is a very arrogantly worded application, which informs the Court that the Joint Commissioner of Police has already taken a decision to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C./ 193(9) BNSS, and in compliance with the said direction, the person making the application had been appointed the Investigating Officer”.
The Court noted that the application merely sought permission to inspect the case diary and documents to facilitate the investigation that had already been ordered by the Joint Commissioner and that it did not request the Court to grant leave for further investigation on the basis of any fresh material subsequently discovered by the O.
The Court extensively referred to Supreme Court's decision in Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026), to conclude that the Police have no power to direct further investigation through the pen of a superior officer unless leave of the Court, trying the case, or even the Magistrate, is obtained for the purpose.
Holding that the Joint Commissioner acted without jurisdiction, the Bench observed that if he was of the opinion that further investigation was necessary, he ought to have approached the Trial Judge through the Investigating Officer and sought permission under Section 173(8) CrPC or Section 193(9) BNSS.
The Court observed thus:
"The Joint Commissioner of Police had no authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. If the Joint Commissioner of Police was of opinion that further investigation was necessary, he should have made a humble application to the learned Trial Judge...seeking permission to further investigate...The impugned order...is absolutely without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed".
The bench added that this requirement applies to every police officer, no matter what his/her rank is.
"It goes without saying that if the Joint Commissioner of Police or Police Officer of any rank, having concern with the matter, is of opinion that further investigation is necessary, a proper application has to be made to the Trial Judge and it is only if and after the learned Judge grants permission that the Police can further investigate the matter; not otherwise", the Court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed all the 3 writ petitions and quashed the Joint Commissioner of Police's order dated December 5, 2025.
It clarified that any investigation already carried out pursuant to the impugned order would be "non est" and liable to be struck off the record.
However, it left it open to the police to move an appropriate application before the Trial Judge seeking permission to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC or Section 193(9) BNSS, as applicable, and proceed only if such permission is granted.
Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari, assisted by Advocate Aditya Gupta, appeared for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3009 of 2026 and 2246 of 2026,
Senior Advocate Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, assisted by Advocate Varun Gupta, appeared for the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4700 of 2026.
Senior Advocate Sarvesh, assisted by Advocate Pramod Kumar, appeared on behalf of respondent no.5
Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal, assisted by AGA Pankaj Saxena, appeared on behalf of the State
Case Title - Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543