Allahabad High Court
SANDEEPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
Further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. requires prior permission of the competent magistrate, and a charge‑sheet issued without such permission must be quashed.
Summary
The applicant Sandeep filed an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash a supplementary charge‑sheet (No. 81‑A/2024) and the cognizance order in Criminal Case No. 4228 of 2025. The charge‑sheet was filed after a second investigation was conducted without the magistrate’s permission under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, despite the applicant having been exonerated in the first investigation. The State argued that a prima facie case existed based on witness statements. The Court held that, following Supreme Court precedent in Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P., further investigation after a charge‑sheet requires prior magistrate approval, and a charge‑sheet issued without such permission is legally untenable. Consequently, the Court quashed the supplementary charge‑sheet and the related cognizance order, while noting it made no finding on the merits of the allegations.
Issues considered
- Whether a further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. can be undertaken without the permission of the concerned magistrate after a charge‑sheet has been filed.
- Whether the supplementary charge‑sheet and the cognizance order issued on the basis of such unauthorised investigation are liable to be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(8)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 325, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
- quash
- charge sheet
- further investigation
- magistrate permission
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- application under Section 528 BNSS
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51916 of 2025
Sandeep
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhanu Prakash Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kamal Kishor Mishra
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Bhanu Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Kamal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on
record.
3. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the
applicant, Sandeep, seeking quashing of Charge Sheet No. 81(A)/2024
dated 01.04.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 443 of 2023, under
Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chhata, District
Mathura, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4228
of 2025 (State vs. Sandeep), pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Chhata, District Mathura. Pleadings are
complete.
4. The brief facts of the present case are that on 25.10.2023, during a
wrestling (dangal) event at Kasba Chhata, Mathura, Krishna, son of the
first informant, won a wrestling match and thereafter a dispute arose
regarding payment of the prize money. It is alleged that the accused
persons pulled Krishna down from the stage and assaulted him with
lathis, dandas and iron rods, causing injuries. He was medically
examined on the same day at District Hospital, Mathura, in the injury
report, four fresh contusions caused by a hard and blunt object were
found. The FIR was lodged after about 43 days, on 08.12.2023,
NA528 No. 51916 of 2025
2
registered as Case Crime No. 443 of 2023 under Sections 323, 325,
504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Chhata, District Mathura. During
the investigation, the present applicant was exonerated and the first
charge-sheet dated 15.03.2024 was submitted only against the co-
accused. Thereafter, on the directions of the superior officers, further
investigation was conducted by the same Sub-Inspector and a second
charge-sheet dated 01.04.2025 was submitted against the present
applicant. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate
passed the impugned order dated 14.05.2025, taking cognizance and
summoning the applicant.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the further investigation,
on the basis of which the second charge-sheet was submitted against
the applicant, was conducted without obtaining permission from the
Magistrate concerned under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It is argued that,
after submission of the first charge-sheet, the police could not have
proceeded with further investigation merely on the directions of
superior police officers without the permission of the concerned
Magistrate. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P., 2026 INSC 120, decided
on 04.02.2026. He, therefore, submits that the second charge-sheet
submitted against the applicant pursuant to such further investigation is
not sustainable in law.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the first
investigation had already been completed and the applicant was
exonerated by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter, without obtaining
permission from the concerned Magistrate, further investigation was
conducted on the directions of the superior police officers and, on the
basis thereof, the applicant was subsequently charge-sheeted. It is,
therefore, submitted that the second charge-sheet is the result of an
investigation conducted without following the proper procedure and,
hence, the proceedings arising out of the same are liable to be quashed.
7. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no.
2 have not disputed the aforesaid submissions of the applicant. They
submit that from the statements of the injured and other witnesses, it is
clear that the applicant along with his companions abused and
NA528 No. 51916 of 2025
3
assaulted the injured Krishna and thereafter fled from the spot after
giving threats. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the
applicant.
8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, it appears that the applicant was
exonerated during the initial investigation and the first charge-sheet
was submitted against the co-accused. Thereafter, further investigation
was conducted on the directions of the superior police officers and the
applicant was subsequently charge-sheeted. It is not disputed that no
prior permission of the concerned Magistrate was obtained for
conducting such further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod
Kumar v. State of U.P. (supra), further investigation under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C., after submission of the police report, cannot be
undertaken merely on the directions of superior police officers without
the permission of the competent court. Therefore, the subsequent
charge-sheet submitted against the applicant pursuant to such further
investigation cannot be sustained in law.
10. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and proceedings
arising out of Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 81-A/2024 dated
01.04.2025, as well as the cognizance order dated 14.05.2025 passed
by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Chhata,
District Mathura, in Criminal Case No. 4228 of 2025 (State vs.
Sandeep), arising out of Case Crime No. 443 of 2023, under Sections
323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Chhata, District Mathura,
so far as it relates to the applicant Sandeep, are hereby quashed.
11. However, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to seek
appropriate permission from the concerned Magistrate for further
investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., in accordance with law.
12. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the allegations against the applicant.
September 21, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…