Permission From Magistrate Necessary For Police To Conduct Further Investigation: Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court has reiterated that in the absence of an express permission from the magistrate, a further investigation cannot be proceeded with by the police after filing of a closure report.

“Even though the statute does not require express permission, the law as it has developed, has made abundantly clear that seeking of permission from the concerned Magistrate has evolved into a requirement.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh.

The bench set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which had justified the continuation of the further investigation against the Appellant which was initiated without the approval of the magistrate. 

Senior Advocate V. Mohana, appearing for the Appellant before the Supreme Court, challenged the High Court's ruling by arguing that it had incorrectly interpreted Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. in holding that prior permission of the Magistrate was not necessary for further investigation. She submitted that although the Code does not expressly mandate such permission, the requirement should be read into the provision to ensure that any further investigation is carried out only with the leave of the Court.

Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Karol, referring to Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2013) 5 SCC 762 observed that the High Court erred in interpreting Section 173(8) CrPC otherwise, as without obtaining a leave of the court/magistrate, it is impermissible to proceed with a further investigation. [Also Refer Peethambaran v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402]

The judgment also quoted from Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad (2013) 5 SCC 762 : "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."

Reliance was also placed on the 2025 judgment in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar

In view of the aforesaid, since the leave of the court was not obtained, the further investigation was held to be invalid.

“Record reveals that although an application had been filed before the concerned Magistrate for further investigation a third time around, no order specifically granting permission is appended on record, neither it is a submission of the party that permission stood granted.”, the court noted.

The appeal was allowed.

“…criminal action against the appellants would be contrary to the authority of law and therefore an abuse of process of law for the reason that the third round of further investigation as a consequence of which the chargesheet was filed, did not have the concerned Magistrate's approval.”, the court held.

Cause Title: PALINISWAMY VEERARAJA & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 557

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar D.s., Adv. Mr. Ishan Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Sreepriya K., Adv. Ms. Surbhi Mehta, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Chadha, A.A.G. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. Jadhav Vishal, Adv. Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv. Mr. Vishal M Vandaganoor, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Soni, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Adv. M/s Ap & J Chambers, AOR