1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the Sessions Court’s order permitting the prosecution to file a supplementary charge-sheet against newly added accused. The Court held that further investigation is a continuation of the original investigation, and the police retain statutory authority under Section 173(8) CrPC to file a supplementary report even after filing the initial charge-sheet.
The Court reaffirmed that although, as a matter of practice, police usually seek leave of the Magistrate before filing a supplementary charge-sheet, failure to take prior leave does not invalidate further investigation, nor does it render the supplementary charge-sheet illegal.
Consequently, the petitioners’ challenge to the order dated 09/09/2024 was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
2. Facts
A charge-sheet in the crime was filed on 12 January 2022. On the same day, the police also recorded the statement of the first informant. This statement contained details implicating the petitioners. However, the police did not include this statement in the original charge-sheet.
Subsequently, the prosecution moved an application before the Sessions Court (Exh. 82) seeking permission to file a supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioners. The petitioners opposed the application, arguing:
• the Investigating Officer had not sought leave before conducting further investigation,
• the informant’s statement was suspiciously withheld from the original charge-sheet,
• the CCTV/mobile footage did not constitute new material, and
• the supplementary charge-sheet lacked any new evidence connecting them to the incident.
The Sessions Court allowed the application, noting that further investigation was needed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as the same incident and same evidence implicated additional accused.
The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 226/227 seeking to quash the permission.
3. Issues
The High Court considered:
- Whether failure of the police to seek prior leave of the Magistrate vitiates further investigation under Section 173(8).
- Whether the supplementary charge-sheet lacked new material.
- Whether the Sessions Court was justified in permitting the filing of the supplementary report.
- Whether CCTV footage, mobile recording, and the informant’s statement created sufficient prima facie material for arraying the petitioners.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners submitted that:
• No leave of the Magistrate was obtained before undertaking further investigation.
• The original charge-sheet omitted the informant’s statement intentionally and maliciously.
• The informant’s statement did not show any overt act on the part of the petitioners.
• The prosecution had no new material whatsoever to justify a second charge-sheet.
• The permission order was mechanical, and the delay of more than two years was unexplained.
They relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, contending that a supplementary charge-sheet filed without prior leave must be discarded.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that:
• Further investigation is a statutory right and does not require prior leave of the Magistrate.
• CCTV footage and mobile recordings clearly captured the presence of the petitioners.
• The informant’s statement was part of the record and indicated their involvement.
• The Sessions Court rightly aimed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, since all accused were connected with the same occurrence.
• Serious lapses by the original Investigating Officer had been noted, and supervisory action was already directed by the lower court.
6. Analysis of the law
A. Further investigation is permissible even after filing of charge-sheet
The High Court relied on a long line of Supreme Court precedents, including:
• Vinay Tyagi — recognising practice of seeking leave but not mandatory requirement.
• Hasanbhai, Ram Lal Narang, A.S. Peter, Nirmal Singh Kahlon, Hemendhra Reddy — all affirming that the police may conduct further investigation dehors any court direction, even after cognizance is taken.
• Vinubhai — clarifying that even Magistrates may order further investigation before trial commences.
The Court held that Section 173(8) CrPC does not impose a prior-leave requirement, and judicial decisions only recommend it as a matter of propriety.
B. Delay does not defeat further investigation
A belated supplementary charge-sheet is not illegal. The central question is whether fresh material exists and whether justice requires further inquiry. Here, both conditions were met.
C. Sufficient prima facie material existed
The Court found:
• the informant’s statement clearly named the petitioners,
• CCTV/mobile footage placed them at the scene,
• details of witnesses and the anticipatory bail order were newly added,
• and the purpose was to array additional accused based on existing evidence.
These materials justified supplementary prosecution.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court quoted extensively from Hemendhra Reddy (2023), reaffirming that:
• Further investigation can be undertaken without prior permission.
• Supplementary reports are valid even after cognizance.
• A Magistrate may also order further investigation suo motu.
The Court also noted the long-standing judicial acceptance of “prior-leave” as a matter of propriety, not as a statutory barrier.
Accordingly, the petitioners’ reliance on Vinay Tyagi was held misplaced, because that judgment also recognises that Section 173(8) contains no explicit prohibition against filing a supplementary charge-sheet without prior leave.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court held:
- Supplementary charge-sheet was filed only after Sessions Court permission.
- The informant’s statement, CCTV footage, and mobile video were sufficient to show prima facie involvement.
- Further investigation is a continuation of the initial investigation; the petitioners’ argument of “no new material” was rejected.
- The purpose—adding accused to avoid multiple trials—was legitimate.
- This Court cannot examine whether the informant’s statement was recorded before or after the original charge-sheet; it is a disputed fact for trial.
- Failure to obtain prior leave does not vitiate the supplementary report.
- The Sessions Court’s order was neither perverse nor illegal.
Thus, the permission granted was lawful.
9. Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the order that allowed filing of the supplementary charge-sheet. It clarified that all observations were prima facie and that the Trial Court must proceed uninfluenced by them while assessing evidence.
10. Implications
This judgment strengthens criminal-procedure jurisprudence in several ways:
• Police have broad, continuing authority to conduct further investigation even after filing the charge-sheet.
• Prior leave, though recommended as best practice, is not mandatory.
• Delay in further investigation will not annul valid supplementary prosecution.
• Courts may permit supplementary charge-sheets to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
• Petitioners cannot rely on procedural lapses alone to escape prosecution where prima facie evidence exists.
The decision reinforces the principle that truth-seeking must prevail over technical objections.
CASE-LAW REFERENCES (summarised)
Vinay Tyagi — Leave is matter of propriety, not statutory mandate.
Ram Lal Narang — Further investigation allowed even after cognizance.
Hasanbhai, A.S. Peter — Police may proceed without court order.
Hemendhra Reddy (2023) — Extensive affirmation of statutory right to further investigation.
Vinubhai — Magistrate can order further investigation until charges are framed.
FAQs
1. Can a supplementary charge-sheet be filed without Magistrate’s prior permission?
Yes. Courts consistently hold that while seeking permission is best practice, Section 173(8) does not mandate it.
2. Does delay invalidate a supplementary charge-sheet?
No. Delay alone cannot defeat further investigation if prima facie material exists.
3. Can CCTV footage form the basis for adding new accused?
Yes. Visual evidence is valid prima facie material for arraying additional accused.