Pramod Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 INSC 120 - CrPC - Further Investigation - Magistrate Power
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 173(8) - The power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned. In the event, the police/ investigation agency is of the opinion that further investigation is necessary in any particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon them to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate/Court, without directing an order for further investigation by themselves. Once such an application is filed by the investigation agency, the Magistrate/Court would apply its judicial mind, in light of the facts and circumstances of the particular case and the reasons demonstrated by the investigating agency, in order to exercise its discretion for exercise of its power to decide whether or not further investigation is to be ordered under the purview of Section 173(8) CrPC.
Case Info
Basic Case Information
Case name: Pramod Kumar & Ors. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 120Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi (judgment authored by Vijay Bishnoi, J.)Judgment date: January 2026 (exact day not specified in the text; styled “–– JANUARY, 2026”)
Statutes / Laws Referred
The judgment refers to and applies, among others:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 173(2) – police report/final report
- Section 173(8) – further investigation
- Section 161 – statements to police
- Section 164 – statements before Magistrate
- Section 156(3) – Magistrate’s power to order investigation (discussed through case law)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- Section 193(3) – corresponding to Section 173(2) CrPC
- Section 193(9) – corresponding to Section 173(8) CrPC
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 376D – gang rape
- Section 352 – punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation
- Section 504 – intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace
- Section 506 – criminal intimidation
- High Court circulars and earlier High Court order (cited in the Magistrate’s order accepting the closure report, for procedure on final reports).
Case Law Cited (with citations)
The Supreme Court expressly relies on and/or discusses these decisions:
- Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 – key authority that:
- Magistrate cannot order de novo/re‑investigation on a police‑report case;
- Magistrate can direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC;
- as a matter of propriety and practice, police should seek leave of the Court before conducting further investigation and filing a supplementary report.
- Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267 – referred to within Vinay Tyagi as underlying precedent on the Magistrate’s powers when a final report is filed.
- Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 17 SCC 1 – three‑Judge Bench affirming the propositions in Vinay Tyagi regarding the Court’s power to direct further investigation.
- Peethambaran v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2024) 16 SCC 65 – holds that further investigation ordered by a District Police Chief (Superintendent of Police) without leave of the Magistrate is impermissible; power to order further investigation lies with the Magistrate or higher court, not the investigating agency.
- Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (2023) 1 SCC 48 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 270 – cited within Peethambaran; reiterates that, though Section 173(8) does not textually mandate it, seeking prior leave of the Court for further investigation and supplementary reports has crystallised into a legal requirement, supported by contemporanea expositio.
- Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160 – relied on by the State to argue “unrestricted” police power; distinguished by the Court here as a case about constitutional courts ordering de novo investigation (transfer to CBI) and not authority for police or executive to order further investigation on their own after a final report has been accepted.
Brief Summary (Three Sentences)
The Supreme Court considered whether, after a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC has been submitted and accepted, the police can undertake further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without obtaining leave of the Magistrate. Applying Vinay Tyagi, Vinubhai and Peethambaran, the Court held that the power to direct further investigation vests only in the Magistrate/court concerned, and that the executive/police cannot unilaterally order further investigation; consequently, the State’s and Superintendent of Police’s directions to CBCID for further investigation, issued without any order of the Magistrate, were held to be without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order, quashed the government communications directing further investigation, and clarified that its observations will not prejudice the pending criminal revision or any other proceedings arising out of FIR No. 70/2013.
