Once the Court Accepts the Closure Report, Executive Has No Role Left — Any Further Investigation Must Begin with Judicial Permission: Supreme Court

“Police Cannot Investigate Beyond Court's Will”, In a significant reaffirmation of judicial supremacy over the criminal investigation process, the Supreme Court of India has categorically held that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be initiated without the prior leave of the Magistrate, once the final report has been accepted. In doing so, the Court quashed the directions issued by the Superintendent of Police and the Under Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Government, which had sought to reopen a closed gang rape case without judicial sanction.

Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash further investigation, terming the entire executive action a “jurisdictional transgression” that undermines the authority of criminal courts.”

“It is unbecoming conduct from an officer of such rank to exercise unfettered powers in excess of jurisdiction, thereby undermining the authority vested in the Court of law,” the Supreme Court declared in its judgment dated January 2026.

“CrPC is Clear — Only Magistrates Can Authorise Further Investigation, Not Police Chiefs or Secretaries”

At the heart of the controversy was a 2013 gang rape FIR, which had culminated in a closure report filed by the Crime Branch and accepted by the Judicial Magistrate in 2015 after due notice to the informant. No protest petition was filed.

However, years later, following a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Under Secretary of the U.P. Government and the Superintendent of Police, Agra, unilaterally ordered "further investigation" by CBCID, without any judicial order. DNA samples were even collected in 2022.

Rejecting this approach, the Supreme Court ruled:

“The Superintendent of Police acted in complete defiance of the procedure laid down under law. Such directions for further investigation, without seeking leave of the Court, are legally unsustainable.”

The Court held that although Section 173(8) CrPC does not expressly mandate prior permission, judicial precedent and long-standing practice demand it.

“The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court is a necessary implication of the provision and is essential to prevent abuse of process. This has evolved into a procedural safeguard through consistent judicial interpretation and must now be treated as law,” the Court observed, relying heavily on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) and Peethambaran v. State of Kerala (2024).

“Executive Cannot Override a Judicial Order — Closure Report Confers Finality Unless Set Aside Through Legal Channels”

The Bench also emphasised that once a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC is accepted, it acquires a stamp of finality, subject to challenge only through judicial remedies like protest petitions or revision.

“The executive cannot nullify a judicial act by directing a parallel investigation. That would amount to re-writing the law from the Secretariat. The rule of law does not permit it,” the Court sternly warned.

In this case, the magistrate had considered the contradictions in witness statements, medical records, and cell location evidence, and rightfully accepted the closure report in 2015. Years later, the State could not casually bypass that judicial conclusion by appointing a new Investigating Officer and re-initiating inquiry.

“Further Investigation Cannot Be a Disguised Fresh Investigation” — SC Cautions Against Abuse of Power

The Court also found that the so-called “further investigation” ordered by the CBCID amounted to a fresh or de novo investigation, which is prohibited by law unless ordered by a Constitutional Court.

“Ordering DNA samples nearly a decade after the incident, without any new material, shows this was not further investigation but an impermissible attempt to revive a dead case by filling up lacunae,” the judgment noted.

The Court reiterated that only Constitutional Courts (under Articles 226 and 32) can direct fresh, de novo, or re-investigation, as clarified in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2016) — a precedent wrongly cited by the State in this case. That power cannot be exercised by police or executive authorities, the Court clarified.

SC Reiterates Importance of Judicial Supervision in Criminal Process

The Bench stressed the significance of judicial oversight in investigations post-filing of the final report, especially to protect the rights of accused persons from endless harassment and procedural abuse.

“To seek leave of the Court for further investigation ensures that the investigating process remains within the bounds of legality and is not used as a tool of oppression or vendetta,” the Court observed.

Quoting its own decisions and invoking the doctrine of contemporanea expositio, the Court concluded that this procedural safeguard has been “understood, adopted, and implemented by all investigating agencies for decades and now forms an integral part of lawful criminal process.”

Executive Orders Quashed, Appeal Allowed

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashing the impugned letters of the Under Secretary and Superintendent of Police dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 respectively, the Supreme Court ordered:

• The executive and police communications directing further investigation stand quashed.
• The pending Criminal Misc. Case No. 440 of 2017 (a revision by the original complainant) shall be decided independently and on its own merits by the Sessions Court.
• Observations in this judgment will not prejudice the outcome of pending proceedings, including any fresh plea made before the Magistrate for further investigation.

“If further investigation is required, the correct procedure must be followed. It is the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, not the police chief’s command, that governs the course of justice,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: January, 2026