Investigation (Section 2

(h) )
“Investigation” includes
all the proceedings under this
Code
For the collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer or
by any person (other than a
Magistrate) who is authorized
by a Magistrate in this behalf
Elements of investigation, H. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh vs The State
Of Delhi, 1955 SCR (1)1150

King- Emperor v. Khawaja Nazir Ahmed,

AIR 1945 PC 18
First Information Report (Section 154)
First Information Report (Section 154)
 videographed

Section 164 as soon

as possible.
• Station house diary is the day to day register of
complaints/information received.
• A map of the jurisdictional area, and important
details such as educational institutions, water
tanks, water bodies, banks and places of worship.
• A list of known depredators (KDs), or criminals,
in the area, along with other believed anti-social
elements, prostitutes and gamblers.
• A list of people who could identify the KDs if the
need arose, together with a list of known criminal
associates, especially people who deal in
buying stolen goods.
• A document describing the modus operandi of
already prosecuted criminals and habitual
offenders.
• Serious unsolved crimes in the jurisdictional
area.
• Serious unsolved crimes in adjoining police areas.
• Police diary which is kept by the
investigation officer.
• General diary is the what are information
received with respect to all the cases
what has done, history of case etc.
• Daily diary is a continuation of case
diary.
• Case diary is the total compendium
information relates to the criminal case
which includes the FIR, charge sheet,
witnesses statement, the carbon copies
of all the statements, certificates, and
the day to day activities and orders and
developments case till judgement, until
conclusion of appeal.
 Objective
• Emperor v.Khwaza Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18
cited in
• Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors, (2012) 4
SCC1
 The purpose of F.I.R
• i)To reduce the substance of information
disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, if
given orally, into writing
• ii) if given in writing to have it signed by the
complainant
• iii) to maintain record of receipt of information as
regards commission of cognizable offences
• iv) to initiate investigation on receipt of
information as regards commission of cognizable
offence
• v) to inform Magistrate forthwith of the factum of
the information received.
Statutory duty of a police to lodge F.I.R
• Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors.,
2013 AIR SCW 6386
1.Registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the
information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a
situation.
2. If the information received does not
disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted
only to ascertain whether cognizable
offence is disclosed or not.
3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a
cognizable offence, the FIR must be
registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry
ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the
entry of such closure must be supplied to the
first informant forthwith and not later than
one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.
4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of
registering offence if cognizable offence is
disclosed. Action must be taken against erring
officers who do not register the FIR if
information received by him discloses a
cognizable offence
5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify
the veracity or otherwise of the information
received but only to ascertain whether the
information reveals any cognizable offence.
6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary
inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry
may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial
disputes/ family disputes b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in
initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over
3 months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
• The aforesaid are only illustrations and
not exhaustive of all conditions which
may warrant preliminary inquiry.
7. While ensuring and protecting the
rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry
should be made time bound and in any
case it should not exceed 7 days. The
fact of such delay and the causes of it
must be reflected in the General Diary
entry.
8. Since the General Diary/Station
Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all
information received in a police
station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of
FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily and meticulously reflected
in the said Diary and the decision to
conduct a preliminary inquiry must
also be reflected, as mentioned above.
 Youth Bar Association of India Vs
Union of India and Others, AIR
• Entitled 2016 SC
• Request for copy of FIR
• Furnishing of copy by court
• Uploading FIR on website
• Decision not to upload
• ‘sensitive’
• Section 438 of the Cr.P.C
• ground of sensitive nature
• eight weeks
• Grant of certified copy by court
 Rumours…Vague information
Pattad Amarappa v. State of Karnataka, 1990
SCC (Cri) 179
 Evidentiary Value
Bijoy Singh & Anr v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002
SC 1949
 Telephonic lodging of F.I.R
Tapinder Singh v. State Of Punjab, 1971 SCR
(1) 599
Ramsinh Bavaji Jadeja v State of Gujarat
[(1994) 2 SCC 685]
Lallan Chaubey v State of U.P, AIR 2011 SC 241
 Death of person lodging F.I.R
Harkirat Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC
3231
Delay in lodging F.I.R
State of U.P v. Nahar Singh
State of Himachal Pradesh v Shree kant
Shekari
AIR 2004SC4404
Investigation by C.B.I
Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2001)7SCC536
Importance of Investigation
Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, AIR
2002 SC 1965
 Correction of date by magistrate
S.Kaur v. Baldev Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1581
 Discrepancy in statement in F.I.R and Witness
box
Jang Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2001)9 SCC704
Failure to mention injuries on accused
Dharminder v. State of H.P, (2002) 7 SCC
488
Two FIRs in respect of same case
Kari choudhary v Sita devi, AIR 2002 SC 441
 Entry in General Diary
Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan
Kumar Singh, 2003 Cr.L.J 2322 (SC)
 Jurisdiction
Satvinder Kaur v. State of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC
3596
 Writ petition for direction for registration
of FIR
K.Karunakaran v. State of Kerela, 2000 Cr.L.J
2278 (SC)
 Petition for quashing of FIR
T. Vengama Naidu v. T. Dora Swamy Naidu,
(2007) 12 SCC 93
• (a) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the ac- cused;
• (b) where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investi- gation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of 
Section 155(2) of the Code;
• (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
• (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
• (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
• (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
• (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [305D-H;
306A-E] 8.2.
• State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors,
AIR 1992 SC 604
 FIR Interested witnesses
State of U.P v. Jagdeo & others, AIR 2003 SC 660
 FIR as Dying Declaration
Dharam Pal & others v. State of U.P, AIR 2008 SC
920
 Omission of name of witnesses
Chittarlal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 2595
 Omission of name of accused
Mohanchand v. State of Uttarakhand, AIR2009 SC
1896
 Contradiction
Asharam and others v. State of M.P, AIR 2007 SC
2595
Sting operation
Rajat Prasad vs C.B.I,  (2014) 6 SCC 495
• (1) The type of crime being investigated and the
availability of other techniques for the police
detection of its commission.
• (2) whether an average person, with both
strengths and weaknesses, in the position of the
accused would be induced into the commission
of a crime;
• (3) the persistence and number of attempts
made by the police before the accused agreed to
committing the offence;
• (4) the type of inducement used by the police
including: deceit, fraud, trickery or reward;
• (5) the timing of the police conduct, in particular
whether the police have instigated the offence or
became involved in ongoing criminal activity;
• (6) whether the police conduct involves an exploitation
of human characteristics such as the emotions of
compassion, sympathy and friendship;
• (7) whether the police appear to have exploited a
particular vulnerability of a person such as a mental
handicap or a substance addiction;
• (8) the proportionality between the police involvement,
as compared to the accused, including an assessment
of the degree of harm caused or risked by the police,
as compared to the accused, and the commission of
any illegal acts by the police themselves;
• (9) the existence of any threats, implied or express,
made to the accused by the police or their agents;
• (10) whether the police conduct is directed at
undermining other constitutional values. R vs. Mack,
(1988) 2 SCR 903
•Navinchandra
N.Majithia vs State
Of Meghalaya And
Others
(2000) 8 SCC323
•C. Muniappan & Ors
vs State Of Tamil
Nadu
AIR2010SC3718
•Central Bureau Of
Investigation vs
State Of
Gujarat AIR2007SC2
• Subhash Krishnan vs State Of Goa,
AIR 2012 SC 3003
• State Of Rajasthan vs Rajkumar
Agarwal & Anr , AIR 2013 SC 847
• State Of Bihar & Anr vs Ranchi Zila
Samta Party & Anr, 1996 SCC (3) 682.
• Dinesh Borthakur vs State Of Assam ,
AIR 2008 SC 2205  
• Bharati Tamang vs Union Of India &
Ors, (2013) 15 SCC 578

•
• a) The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its
relevancy.
• b) Unless there is an express or implied
constitutional prohibition or other law, evidence
placed as a result of even an illegal search or seizure
is not liable to be shut out.
• c) If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is
visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which
try to hide the realities or covering the obvious
deficiency, Courts have to deal with the same with an
iron hand appropriately within the framework of law.
• d) It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the
Court to ensure that full and material facts are
brought on record so that there might not be
miscarriage of justice.
• e) In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on
without any deficiency, in appropriate cases this Court can even
constitute Special Investigation Team and also give appropriate
directions to the Central and State Governments and other
authorities to give all required assistance to such specially
constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits
and for effective conduct of the prosecution
• f) While entrusting the criminal prosecution
with other instrumentalities of State or by
constituting a Special Investigation Team,
the High Court or this Court can also
monitor such investigation in order to ensure
proper conduct of the prosecution.
• g) In appropriate cases even if the charge
sheet is filed it is open for this Court or even
for the High Court to direct investigation of
the case to be handed over to CBI or to any
other independent agency in order to do
complete justice.
• h) In exceptional circumstances the Court in
order to prevent miscarriage of criminal
justice and if considers necessary may direct
for investigation de novo.
• Can court give orders for registration of
FIR & investigation?
 Suresh Chandra Jain v State of M.P, AIR 2001
SC 571
 Mohd Yusuf v Afaq Jahan, AIR 2006 SC 705
 CBI v State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 668
 Divine Retreat Centre v State of Kerela, AIR
2008 SC 1614 and
 Kunga Lima Lepcha v State of Sikkim, AIR
2010 SC 1671
 Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008) 2 SCC 409
 T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors (2011)
12 SCC 328.
 State of Haryana v Bhajanlal, AIR 1992 SC
604
 S.N. Sharma v Bipen Kumar, AIR 1970 SC 786
 reaso
ns 

reaso
ns 

Aqueel Ahmed v State of

U.P, AIR 2009 SC 1271 forthwith
Directorate of Enforcement notify to the
v. Guru Swarup Srivastava, (2006) informant
Sube Singh v. State of Punjab,
AIR 2006 SC 1117
Ranbir & others v. State
of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC
1409.
Raghunandan v.
State Of U.P, AIR
1974 SC 463
Lokeman
shah &
another v.
State of
West
Bengal,
AIR 2001
SC 1760
 sectio
n “I have explained to (name) that he is
not bound to make a confession and
281  that, if he does so, any confession he
sign may make may be used as evidence
against him and I believe that this
ed confession was voluntarily made. It was
taken in my presence and hearing, and
was read over to the person making it
Person and admitted by him to be correct, and
making it contains a full and true account of the
statement made by him.
confession
(Signed) A.B. Magistrate”.
 Relevance of Statement U/S.161
Delayed Bodhraj v State of
examination of Jammu and Kashmir,
witness AIR 2002 SC 3164
Delay in sending Abu Takik v State,
statements of AIR 2010 SC 2119
witness to
Magistrate
How the statements Karmu Bakta v State
under S. 161 is to of Orissa 1992, CrLJ
be recorded? What 2154 (Ori)
if it is not recorded Alamgir v State
and first time (NCT) of Delhi (2003)
examined in the 1 SCC 21
court? Baleshwar Rai v State
 Relevance of Statement U/S.161
Can substance of Narayan
interrogation by Chetamnam
investigating Choudhary v State
officer is covered of Maharashtra,
under S. 161? (2008 ) 8 SCC 457
What is the Jaswant Singh v
significance of State of Haryana,
Omission? AIR 2000 SC 1833
Tahsildar Singh v
State of U.P., 1959
SCR Suppl. (2)
875;
 Relevance of Statement
U/S.161
What if the Gurpreet
portion of Singh v State
evidence is of Haryana,
inconsistent with AIR 2002 SC
statement U/Sec. 3217
161?
Can court State of
summon the case Kerela v
diary to peruse Babu, AIR
Relevance of Statement U/S.161
Signature of State of U.P v
witness on M.K Anthony, AIR
Statements 1985 SC 48
recorded U/Sec.
161
Can court put a Raghunandan Vs.
question to State of U.P.,
witnesses? (AIR 1974 SC
463) 
Nature of Rajendra singh
evidence U/Sec. vs. State of U.P –
161 (2007) 7 SCC 378
 Confession and Statements
 Jogendra Nahak v State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC
2565
 Ram Kishan v Harmit Kaur, AIR 1972 SC 468
 Mahabir Singh v State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC
2503
 M.A. Anthony v State of Kerela, AIR 2009 SC 2549
 State of Punjab v Harjagdev Singh, AIR 2009 SC
2693
 Shankaria v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1399
 Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [1957] SCR 953
 Sanjay Goel v State of U.P, 2002 Cr.L.J 625 (All)
 Rabindra Kumar Paul v Republic of India, AIR 2011
SC 1436
 Kartar Singh Vs state of Punjab, 1994 Crl.L.J. 3139
Confession Statement
 Mahabir Singh v State  Jogendra Nahak v State
of Haryana, AIR 2001 of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC
SC 2503 2565
 M.A. Anthony v State • Ram Kishan v Harmit
of Kerela, AIR 2009 Kaur, AIR 1972 SC 468,
SC 2549 State v/s. Shriram Lohiya
 State of Punjab v A.I.R. 1960 SC 490
Harjagdev Singh, AIR • I.B.B.Rao v/s. State –
2009 SC 2693
1985 Cr.L.J. 32
 Shankaria v State of
• Ramchander v/s State
Rajasthan, AIR 1978
A.I.R. 1981 SC 1036 :
SC 1399
 Sarwan Singh v. State 1981 Cr.L.J. 609
of Punjab [1957] SCR • State of U.P. V/s. Veer
953 singh 2004 Cr.L.J. 3835
 Rabindra Kumar Paul (SC), Shrawan v/s. State
v Republic of India, of Maharashtra 2003
AIR 2011 SC 1436 Cr.L.J. 398 –A (SC)
The following principles emerge with regard to Section
164 Cr.P.C.:-
(i) The provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. must be
complied with not only in form, but in essence.
(ii) Before proceeding to record the confessional
statement, a searching enquiry must be made from the
accused as to the custody from which he was produced
and the treatment he had been receiving in such
custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for
doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding
from a source interested in the prosecution.
(iii) A Magistrate should ask the accused as to why he
wants to make a statement which surely shall go
against his interest in the trial.(iv) The maker should
be granted sufficient time for reflection.
(v) He should be assured of protection from any sort of
apprehended torture or pressure from the police in
case he declines to make a confessional statement.
(vi) A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable,
more so, when such a confession is retracted, the
conviction cannot be based on such retracted judicial
confession.
(vii) Non-compliance of Section 164 Cr.P.C. goes to the root
of the Magistrate's jurisdiction to record the confession
and renders the confession unworthy of credence.
(viii) During the time of reflection, the accused should be
completely out of police influence. The judicial officer, who
is entrusted with the duty of recording confession, must
apply his judicial mind to ascertain and satisfy his
conscience that the statement of the accused is not on
account of any extraneous influence on him.
(ix) At the time of recording the statement of the accused,
no police or police official shall be present in the open
court.
(x) Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence.
(xi) Usually the Court requires some corroboration from
the confessional statement before convicting the accused
person on such a statement.
(1) An accused person cannot be said to have been
compelled to be a witness against himself simply
because he made a statement while in police
custody, without anything more. 
(2) The mere questioning of an accused person by a
police officer, resulting in a voluntary statement,
which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory,
is not 'compulsion'.
(3) 'To be a witness' is not equivalent to 'furnishing
evidence' in its widest significance; that is to say, as
including not merely making of oral or written
statements but also production of documents or
giving materials which may be relevant at a trial to
determine the guilt innocence of the accused.
(4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot
or palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing
parts of the body by way of identification are not
included in the expression 'to be a witness'.
(5) 'To be a witness' means imparting knowledge in
respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a
statement in writing, made or given in Court or
otherwise.
(6) 'To be a witness' in its ordinary grammatical
sense means giving oral testimony in Court. Case
law has gone beyond this strict literal
interpretation of the expression which may now
bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing testimony in
Court or out of Court by a person accused of an
offence, orally or in writing.
(7) To bring the statement in question within the
prohibition of Article 20(3), the person accused
must have stood in the character of an accused
person at the time he made the statement. It is not
enough that he should become an accused, any
time after the statement has been made."
• Ram Kishan –vs- • Not a substantive
Harmit A.I.R. 1972 evidence
SC 468, State v/s.
Shriram Lohiya A.I.R.
• Police custody
1960 SC 490 • should not rebuke
• I.B.B.Rao v/s. State – him nor threaten
1985 Cr.L.J. 32 him
• Ramchander v/s State • Dying declaration
A.I.R. 1981 SC 1036 :
1981 Cr.L.J. 609
• State of U.P. V/s. Veer
singh 2004 Cr.L.J.
3835 (SC), Shrawan
v/s. State of
Maharashtra 2003
Cr.L.J. 398 –A (SC)
 (2) The registered medical practitioner, to
whom such woman is sent shall, without
delay, examine her and prepare a report of his
examination giving the following particulars,
namely:-
 Name and address of the woman and of the
person by whom she was brought;
 Age of the woman;
 Description of material taken from the person
of the woman for DNA profiling;
 Marks of injury, if any, on the person of the
woman;
 General mental condition of the woman; and
 Other material particulars in reasonable detail.
• (3) Report shall state precisely the reasons for each
conclusion arrived at.
• (4) Report shall specifically record that the consent
of the woman or of the person competent to give such
consent on her behalf to such examination had been
obtained.
• (5) The exact time of commencement and completion
of the examination shall also be noted in the report.
• (6) The registered medical practitioner shall, without
delay forward the report to the investigation officer
who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in
section 173 as part of the documents referred to in
clause (a) of sub-section (5) of that section.
• (7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as
rendering lawful any examination without the
consent of the woman or of any person competent to
give such consent on her behalf.
 Search and Seizure
• 91. Summons to produce document or other thing.
• 92. Procedure as to letters and telegrams.
• 93. When search-warrant may be issued
• 94. Search of place suspected to contain stolen
property, forged documents, etc
Shyamlal Mohanlal vs State Of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1251
• 97. Search for persons wrongfully confined
• 98. Power to compel restoration of abducted females.
• 103. Magistrate may direct search in his presence.
• 104. Power to impound document, etc., produced
• 105. Reciprocal arrangements regarding processes
• 166A. Letter of request to competent authority for
investigation in a country or place outside India.—
 Narinder Singh
Bograh v. State of
Punjab, AIR 2004
SC 1686
Procedure when investigation cannot
be completed in 24 hours - Section
167
 CBI Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, AIR 1992
SC 1768
• Provided that-
• Otherwise than in the custody of the
police, beyond the period of fifteen days,
• If he is satisfied that adequate grounds
exist for doing so,
• But no Magistrate
Shall authorise the detention of the accused
person in custody under this paragraph for a
total period exceeding-
(i) 90 Where the investigation relates to an
days offence
Punishable with death,
Imprisonment for life or
Imprisonment for a term of not less than
ten years
 Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2001 SC 1910
 Narendra Kumar Amin v CBI, (2015) 3 SCC 417
 Union of India through CBI v Nirala Yadav –
(2014) 9 SCC 457.
 State v Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, (2000) 10 SCC
438
 Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI, (2013) 7 SCALE 7
 Bashir v State of Haryana, AIR 1978 SC 55
Procedure when Investigation cannot
be completed in 24 hours - Section
167
Procedure when investigation cannot
be completed in 24 hours - Section
167
Procedure when investigation cannot
be completed in 24 hours - Section
167
Procedure when investigation cannot
be completed in 24 hours - Section
167
Procedure when investigation cannot
be completed in 24 hours - Section
167

Nirmal
Kanti Roy
v.
State of
West
Bengal,
AIR 1998
SC 2322
Phanindra
Nath Maity
v.
State of
West
State of West Bengal v. Falguni Dutta Bengal,
and another (1993) 3 SCC 288 1996 Cr.L.J
590 (Cal)
R. Sarala v. T.S Velu, AIR 2000 SC
1731
 Section 170: Cases to be sent to
Magistrate when evidence is sufficient
Section 170 – Cont…
Section 171: Complainant & witnesses not to
be required to accompany police officer &
not to be subjected to restraint
 Section 172:
Diary of Proceedings in
Investigation

Bhagwant Singh v Commissioner of Police,

AIR 1983 SC 826
(1985) 2 SCC 537,
Sec. 173. Report of police officer on
completion of investigation
Sec. 173
 Sec. 173
 Report submitted through superior officer of
the police
 Discharge of such bond
 All documents or relevant extracts thereof on
which the prosecution proposes to rely other
than those already sent to the Magistrate
during investigation;
 Statements recorded U/Sec. 161 of all the
persons whom the prosecution proposes to
examine as its witnesses.
 Non disclosure of fact to accused in public
interest
 He may furnish to the accused copies of all or
any of the documents 
 Further investigation
 Cases
 Union Public Service Commission v
S Papaiah, AIR 1997 SC 3876
 State of Bihar v Chandra Bhushan
Singh, AIR 2001 SC 429
 State of AP v A.S Peter, AIR 2008 SC
1052
 Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5
SCC 762. 
• 1. The Magistrate has no power to
direct ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh
investigation’ (de novo) in the case
initiated on the basis of a police report.
• 2. A Magistrate has the power to direct
‘further investigation’ after filing of a
police report in terms of Section 173(6)
 of the Code.
• 3. The view expressed in (2) above is in
conformity with the principle of law
stated in Bhagwant Singh’s case
(supra) by a three Judge Bench and
thus in conformity with the doctrine of
precedence.
• 4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any
specific provision therein bars exercise of such
jurisdiction by the Magistrate. The language
of Section 173(2) cannot be construed so
restrictively as to deprive the Magistrate of
such powers particularly in face of the
provisions of Section 156(3) and the language
of Section 173(8) itself. In fact, such power
would have to be read into the language of 
Section 173(8).
• 5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it
must receive a construction which would
advance the cause of justice and legislative
object sought to be achieved. It does not stand
to reason that the legislature provided power
of further investigation to the police even after
filing a report,
• but intended to curtail the power of the
Court to the extent that even where the
facts of the case and the ends of justice
demand, the Court can still not direct the
investigating agency to conduct further
investigation which it could do on its own.
• 6. It has been a procedure of proprietary
that the police has to seek permission of
the Court to continue ‘further
investigation’ and file supplementary
chargesheet. This approach has been
approved by this Court in a number of
judgments. This as such would support
the view that we are taking in the present
case.
 Police to inquire and report on
suicide, etc. Section 174
Officer in charge of a police station or
some other police officer specially
empowered by the State Government
 Receives
•   information 

 Suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal

or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under
circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some
other person has committed an offence

Executive
Magistrate
State General
empowered to Governmen or
hold inquests t Special
order
Police to inquire and report onA.P.
1975
AIR
SC
1252
suicide, etc. Section 174• Banwari
Ram Ors
vs State Of
Up, AIR
1998 SC
674
• Suresh Rai
& Ors vs
State Of
Bihar ,
AIR 2000
SC 2207
• Manoj
Kumar
Sharma v
State, AIR
2016 SC
3930
• Madhu @
Madhuran
atha & Anr
vs State Of
Karnataka
, AIR 2014
SC 394
Police to inquire and report
on suicide, etc. Section 174
dou
bt

District Magistrate
Medical or Sub-divisional
examination Magistrate and any
by civil other Executive
surgeon Magistrate specially
Power to summon persons
Section 175
Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of
death.
Section 176