In a significant ruling clarifying police powers during criminal investigations, the Supreme Court has held that investigating agencies cannot carry out further investigation after filing a final report without prior permission from the concerned court. The verdict came in an appeal filed by Pramod Kumar and others challenging orders directing reinvestigation into a rape case in Uttar Pradesh.
Background of the Case
The case traces back to November 2013, when an FIR was registered in Firozabad against seven accused persons, including the appellants, under serious charges including gang rape and criminal intimidation. The investigation was transferred multiple times-from the Mahila Police Station to the Crime Branch in Firozabad and later to the Crime Branch in Mathura.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside J&K High Court Order in NRI Custody Fight, Sends Case Back for Fresh Decision
After investigation, the police submitted a closure report in May 2014, citing contradictions in witness statements and lack of supporting evidence. The Judicial Magistrate accepted the closure report in September 2015 after noting that the complainant neither appeared before the court nor filed any protest against the report. The medical evidence and call location records also did not support the prosecution’s case.
Nearly three years later, the complainant filed a revision petition challenging the acceptance of the closure report. Meanwhile, a complaint was also made before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), alleging deficiencies in the police investigation.
Acting on the NHRC’s directions, the Uttar Pradesh government ordered a fact-finding inquiry and recommended further investigation through the Crime Branch–CID (CBCID). Subsequently, police authorities directed reinvestigation and collected DNA samples from the accused.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order, Says High Courts Can’t Strike Off Plaint When CPC Remedy Exists
Challenge Before the High Court
The accused persons approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the government and police orders directing further investigation. The High Court allowed the probe to continue and dismissed the writ petition, noting that allegations were serious and DNA testing could help identify the actual offender.
Aggrieved by this decision, the accused moved the Supreme Court, arguing that once a closure report had been accepted by a magistrate, further investigation could only be ordered by a court and not by executive or police authorities.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that police authorities had initiated reinvestigation nearly seven years after the closure report without obtaining the court’s permission. They contended that such a move amounted to an impermissible fresh investigation rather than lawful “further investigation.”
They also pointed to a DNA report, which concluded that none of the accused were biologically related to the aborted fetus allegedly resulting from the crime.
On the other hand, the State argued that the law allows further investigation under the criminal procedure framework and that police powers in this regard are not restricted.
Court’s Observations
The bench examined provisions dealing with further investigation and referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings. The court noted that although the law allows police to conduct further investigation, a consistent judicial practice requires investigating agencies to obtain the court’s permission before doing so.
The bench observed, “The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to conduct further investigation… is a necessary implication of the provisions and provides an important safeguard to the accused.”
The court further emphasised that only the magistrate or a higher court can order further investigation. It held that police authorities or executive officers cannot assume that role.
The bench also criticised the conduct of the Superintendent of Police, stating that directing further investigation without judicial approval was contrary to established legal procedure and undermined the authority of courts.
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court quashed the government and police directions issued in 2019 and 2021 for further investigation. The court ruled that such directions were issued without following the mandatory legal procedure.
However, the court clarified that its ruling would not affect the pending revision petition filed by the complainant or any other related proceedings, which must be decided independently on their merits.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Pramod Kumar & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 350 of 2024
Decision Date: February 4, 2026
