Table of Contents
The following landmark judgments explain the legal principles governing further investigation under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These decisions clarify the scope of supplementary investigation, the powers of the Magistrate, the distinction between further investigation and fresh investigation, and the effect of pending further investigation on cognizance and default bail.
1. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. (2024 INSC 58)
Held: Supreme Court held that once from the material produced along with the charge-sheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) (now Section 193(9) of BNSS) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of charge-sheet would neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was an incomplete charge-sheet or that the charge-sheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 193(3) of BNSS).
2. Mariyum Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. (2024 INSC 49)
Held: Supreme Court held that the term 'further investigation' stipulated in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. (now Section 193(9) of BNSS) obligates the officer in charge of the concerned police station to 'obtain further evidence, oral or documentary', and only then forward a supplementary report regarding such evidence, in the prescribed form. In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance.
3. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2023 INSC 481)
Held: Supreme Court held that a magistrate has the power to order further investigation and fresh investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation fall into the purview of the jurisdiction of a higher court. It was also observed by the Court that the distinction between further investigation and fresh investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation being 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 definite order of the Court that effect which must state the reason as to why the previous investigation is incapable of being acted upon.
