Superior police officer can direct further investigation u/s 173(8) CrPC before charge-sheet: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Superintendent of Police is competent to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to the submission of a charge-sheet before the concerned court, and that no prior permission of the Magistrate is required at that stage so long as the original charge-sheet has not been filed against the accused.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the power flows from Section 36 read with Section 173(8) CrPC, and that a superior police officer may take over or supervise the investigation either suo motu or on the direction of the Government, without obtaining leave of the Magistrate at the pre-charge-sheet stage. The bench was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC in connection with the unnatural death of a young woman.

Examining the scope of Section 36 CrPC, the Court observed:

“The legislative intendment of Section 36 of Cr.P.C. is that all the superior rank police officers above SHO including the Superintendent of Police should involve in supervising the investigation to ensure the integrity and quality. It is permissible for any Superior officer of police to take over the investigation from such officer incharge of police station either suo motu or on the direction of the superior officer even that of the Government. When any police office referred to in Section 36 conducts the investigation that cannot be called in question as without authority.”

The matter arose out of FIR No. 30/2019 registered at Police Station Malakhera, district Alwar, on 14.01.2019 by complainant Rafi Mohammad with regard to the unnatural death of his sister Rihana, who had died within seven years of her marriage. The FIR named the petitioner Taimoor along with several other relatives of the husband. During the initial investigation, the statements of twelve witnesses recorded on 15.01.2019 confined the operative allegations of dowry-related torture exclusively to the husband Shahrukh Khan and the mother-in-law Aliman. The investigating officer accordingly found a prima facie case only against those two persons and did not find the involvement of the petitioner to be proved.

No charge-sheet was, however, filed at that stage, nor was any negative final report submitted in favour of the petitioner. On 21.02.2019, the Superintendent of Police, Alwar, finding the initial investigation unsatisfactory, directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Alwar (Rural), to conduct further investigation. The Additional S.P. recorded fresh statements of the same twelve witnesses on 13.03.2019, 27.03.2019, 28.03.2019 and 01.04.2019, along with several other witnesses, and on finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, kept the investigation against him pending under Section 173(8) CrPC. A charge-sheet was filed only against Shahrukh Khan and Aliman on 10.04.2019 for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that there exists a clear distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation, and that under the garb of further investigation the police had effectively conducted a reinvestigation by re-recording the statements of the very same witnesses. It was further argued that the Superintendent of Police had no authority to pass any such order and that the power to direct further investigation lay only with the concerned Court. Reliance was placed on Pradeep Kumar Maurya v State of U.P., Vinay Tyagi v Irshad Ali, Devendra Kumar Srivastava v State of U.P. and Geddam Jhansi v State of Telangana.

Per contra, the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant submitted that the deceased had died in unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, that the earlier investigation had not been conducted in a fair and impartial manner, and that the SP was fully competent to issue directions for further investigation since no charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had not yet joined the investigation.

The question framed by the Court was whether the Superintendent of Police can issue an order for conducting further investigation prior to submission of report under Section 173 CrPC before the concerned Court. After reiterating that fair investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution — relying on Sathyavani Ponrani v Samuel Raj, Nirmal Singh Kohlon v State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441, and Subramanian Swamy v CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682 — the Court turned to the scheme of Chapter XII of the Code.

The bench noted that Section 36 CrPC empowers superior police officers to exercise the same powers as the officer in-charge of a police station, throughout the local area to which they are appointed. Read with Section 173(8), which recognises the unqualified power to forward further reports on evidence obtained subsequent to the principal report, a superior officer is therefore competent to take over or direct further investigation. The Court made reference to the Patna High Court’s decision in Abdul Sattar v State of Bihar, 1989 SC Online Pat 316, and the observation in C. Lohithakshan v State of Kerala, 1989 Cr.L.J. 614, that “when Section 173(8) gives recognition to an unqualified power, it cannot be read as importing a prohibition”.

Holding that no court permission is required at the pre-charge-sheet stage, the Court stated:

“Hence, it is clear that a Superior Officer had the authority to direct for further investigation and permission for conducting further investigation is not required to be obtained from the Court, if the original charge-sheet is not submitted.”

It was clarified that once a charge-sheet has been filed, the power to order further investigation can be exercised only by the concerned Court. Applying these principles, the Court held that no illegality had been caused by the SP, Alwar in passing the order dated 21.02.2019 directing further investigation, and that the investigation against the petitioner could lawfully continue under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Additional S.P., Alwar (Rural), who was directed to consider the same and conduct a fair and impartial investigation in accordance with law. All pending applications, including the stay application, were also disposed of.

Title: Taimoor v State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2809/2019

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:20996]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Aamir Aziz, Mr. Navdeep Singh, Mr. Shubham Dular

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A; Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore for Mr. Rajveer Singh