S. 173(8) CrPC | Magistrate Can Direct Further Investigation Even Without Prayer From Investigating Agency/ Complainant: Orissa High Court

Clarifying the position of law vis-à-vis power of Court to direct further investigation, a Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi held–

“The power of a Magistrate or a Special Judge to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. This power is imbued with the purpose of advancing the cause of justice and ensuring an investigation that is comprehensive, fair, and effective. Ergo, the mere absence of a formal prayer for further investigation from either the Vigilance Department or the complainant does not per se divest the Court of its inherent jurisdiction to issue such a direction if the factual matrix so warrants.”

The case revolved around a vigilance matter emanating from an alleged demand of illegal gratification to the tune of rupees four lakhs by a serving Tahasildar (Petitioner No.1). As per the prosecution case, the first instalment of rupees fifty thousand was handed over to a private Amin (Petitioner No.2) as per the instruction of Petitioner No.1.

Basing upon the complaint of the complainant, a trap was laid by the Vigilance Department. During such trap, the complainant handed over the tainted notes to Petitioner No.2, which was proved by positive hand-wash. However, before the Vigilance team could arrive at the spot, the said bundle of notes was handed over to another person for which it could never be recovered.

Since the tainted notes could not be recovered from the possession of accused persons, the investigating agency submitted a final form showing lack of evidence. However, such final form was not accepted by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar, who directed further investigation in the case as per the provision under Section 173(8).

Such order was impugned before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC/ Section 528 BNSS.

It was the vehement contention of the petitioners that when neither the Vigilance Department nor the complainant ever prayed for further investigation, the trial Court erred in directing further investigation especially when the corpus delicti i.e. the tainted notes could not be recovered from the spot by the Vigilance team.

Justice Panigrahi, however, was reluctant to accept such proposition. He was of the view that while the above argument holds a “superficial allure”, it fails to withstand rigorous juridical scrutiny. He thus held–

“This Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that the learned Special Judge, while declining to accept the Final Report, assigned cogent and reasoned grounds. The order underscored that the Investigating Officer had myopically concentrated on the non-recovery of the tainted money, while conspicuously overlooking other incriminating circumstances pertaining to demand and acceptance.”

The Judge underlined that the mere absence of a formal prayer for further investigation from either the Vigilance Department or the complainant does not per se deprive the Court of its inherent power to issue such a direction if the facts require disinterring of further evidence.

“Upon an integrated consideration of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 11.12.2017, directing further investigation, does not suffer from any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity that would warrant interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition directing the investigating agency to submit the charge-sheet within eight weeks.

Case Title: Akhaya Kumar Rout & Anr. v. State of Odisha (Vigilance)

Case No: CRLMC No. 1496 of 2025

Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Uma Charan Mishra, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Niranjan Moharana, Addl. Standing Counsel (Vigilance)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 55