Do the police need court permission to investigate further after the final report is filed?

File photo of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. | Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

The story so far: The Supreme Court recently v Paliniswamy Veeraraja & Ors. in State of Karnataka & Anr. he reiterated that the investigating authorities were required to obtain permission from the magistrate to start further investigations after the final report was submitted. In this case, the Court quashed the First Information Report (FIR) and the subsequent charge sheet, holding that no such permission was obtained.

Although an application for further investigation was made before the concerned judge for the third time, no order granting permission was entered, the court said. The investigative agency has previously filed closure reports twice, saying the dispute appears to be entirely civil in nature. The court also relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), holding that the civil nature of the dispute was another ground for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

What does the law say about further investigation after a closure/charge report is filed with the Magistrate?

Section 173, Paragraph 8 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Criminal Code”) provides for a further investigation after sending a report to the municipality about the end of the investigation. It states that “further investigation of an offense after a report under subsection (2) has been referred to a Magistrate, and if, on the basis of such investigation, the police officer obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports relating to such evidence in the prescribed form…”. Subsection (2) of Section 173 of the NOZ provides for the submission of a report to the municipality after completion of the investigation in the prescribed form.

Also Read: ​Without a warrant: On police action and journalists in Chennai

In other words, Section 173(8) of the Criminal Code says that if the head of the police department finds additional evidence after sending the final report to the municipality, he can send a supplementary report to the municipality. He is silent on obtaining permission from the municipality to file an additional report under subsection (8). Section 193 paragraph 9 of the BNSS is pari materia (dealing with the same subject) to Section 173 paragraph 8 of the Consumer Protection Act.

What did the Supreme Court decide with regard to further investigation after the submission of the final report?

The Supreme Court in the case of Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) held that “although there is no specific requirement in Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct further investigation or file a supplementary report with the permission of the court, the investigating authorities have not only understood this but also accepted it as a legal practice to seek permission from the courts for further investigation and submit a supplementary report with the permission of the court”.

The court decided that the requirement for prior permission of the court to carry out further investigation will have to be read and is a necessary implication of the provisions of § 173 paragraph 8 of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will fully help such an interpretation, as things that are understood and carried out over a long period of time, and such practice, which has a basis in law, should be accepted as part of the interpretation process, the Court decided. This proposal was approved by the Supreme Court in the following cases as well.

While the newly added proviso to Section 193(9) of the BNSS (which is pari materia to Section 173(8) of the Privacy Act) mandates that if the process is initiated, the consent of the court is required, the Supreme Court in Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2024) reiterated that even though the Act does not require express permission, the Act does not require express permission. Recently, the Supreme Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025) upheld the ratio of Vinay Tyagi’s case (supra) holding that the court’s permission to file a supplementary charge is part of the law.

Therefore, despite the new provisions of the BNSS, once the indictment or the final report is filed, further investigation based on new evidence can only be conducted with the consent of the court.

RK Vij is a retired IPS officer.

Published – 21 Jun 2026 11:36 IST