Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court of India, 4 February 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 120
After a closure report has been accepted, the police or the State cannot order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC on their own; that power rests with the Magistrate or a higher court, and leave must be sought.
Facts
An FIR registered in 2013 under Sections 376D, 352, 504 and 506 IPC named seven accused, including the appellants. After investigation by the Crime Branch, a closure report was filed in 2014, and the Magistrate accepted it in 2015 after the informant, though served, filed no protest petition. The informant later filed a revision, which is pending. On a complaint to the NHRC, the State Government by a communication of 06.06.2019 entrusted the matter to the CBCID, and an Inspector of CBCID was nominated for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. He sought the Magistrate's permission, but no order was passed; by an order of 26.04.2021 the Superintendent of Police, Agra communicated the nomination and directed the investigation to be completed. Blood samples of the accused were taken for DNA tests. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the communication and the order, and the accused appealed.
Questions before the Court
- After a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC has been submitted, can the police or investigating agency conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC without the leave of the Magistrate or Court concerned?
What the Court held
- The power of the investigating agency to investigate further is not in dispute; the real question is which authority can direct further investigation. Following Vinay Tyagi, Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Peethambaran, the power to direct further investigation rests solely with the Magistrate or Court concerned, not with the investigating agency.
- If the police think further investigation is needed, they must apply to the Magistrate or Court instead of ordering it themselves. The Magistrate then applies its judicial mind to the facts and the reasons given and decides whether further investigation should be ordered.
- Here the Superintendent of Police directed further investigation without leave of the Court, though the Magistrate had passed no order on the CBCID application. He acted in defiance of the procedure laid down by law and in excess of jurisdiction.
- Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana did not help the State, as its facts were different. The High Court's judgment, the communication of 06.06.2019 and the order of 26.04.2021 were set aside, without prejudice to the pending revision of the informant.
Why it matters
The judgment restates that leave of the Magistrate or Court is a requirement for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (Section 193(9) BNSS), and holds that neither the State Government nor a Superintendent of Police can direct it, particularly after a closure report has been accepted. It confines Dharam Pal on its facts and sets out the course the police must follow: apply to the Court, which decides judicially.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In light of the legal position as settled by this Court through the above judgments, it is safe to say that the power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned.”
“Once such an application is filed by the investigating 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) of CrPC.”
“Thus, it is amply clear that the Superintendent of Police acted in complete defiance of the procedure laid down under the law while passing orders directing further investigation without seeking leave of the Court. It is an unbecoming conduct from the officer of such a rank to exercise unfettered powers, in excess of its jurisdiction, thereby undermining the authority vested in the Court of law.”
“Thus, the powers of the investigating agency for further investigation are not in dispute herein. However, what catches attention here and which is also the crux of the controversy in the present case, is which authority can pass an order directing investigating agency to undertake further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Case
- Criminal Appeal of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 350 of 2024)
- Decided
- 4 February 2026
- Bench
- Rajesh Bindal, Vijay Bishnoi
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
P's application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 asking the Magistrate to direct an investigation is rejected. P later gives the police information disclosing a cognizable offence on substantially the same allegations, and an FIR is registered. The accused seeks quashing, relying on the earlier rejection. Following Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (19 August 2026):
- A. the FIR survives only if P had first challenged the rejection in revision before the Court of Session
- B. the FIR survives, since a rejection under Section 156(3) decides nothing on merits and is not res judicata
- C. the FIR must be quashed unless the Magistrate grants the police fresh leave to register and investigate it
- D. the FIR must be quashed, since a rejection under Section 156(3) bars any later FIR on the same or similar allegations
Show the answer
B. the FIR survives, since a rejection under Section 156(3) decides nothing on merits and is not res judicata
In 2026 INSC 887 (Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.) the Court held that an order rejecting a Section 156(3) application is passed at the threshold without adjudication on merits and does not attract res judicata. The police duty to register an FIR flows from Section 154 CrPC, as held in Lalita Kumari, and is not curtailed by the rejection.