THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3639 of 2008 Dated:15.07.2010 Between: Kalleda Gangadhar. ….Petitioner And The State of A.P., Through CI of Police Bheemgal PS, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3639 of 2008 ORDER: The sole accused in Crime No.112 of 2007 of P.S.Bheemgal, Nizamabad District under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), is the petitioner. He seeks quashing of the investigation of the crime, inter alia, contending that when the Police have already submitted report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), as accidental, a further investigation is illegal. The second respondent gave a report to the Police on 26.11.2007 alleging as follows. On 25.11.2007 at 6.00 am when he was returning on motor cycle bearing A.P.15 P 2443 along with his wife after attending Limbadri Gutta Jatara, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 7093 driven by the petitioner dashed against the motor cycle. He and his wife fell down. While she was being shifted to Armoor hospital, she succumbed to injuries and that death occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. According to the petitioner on 24.01.2008 the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Bheemgal, submitted a report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, stating that, “it is a clear case of accidental”. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police by endorsement dated 03.05.2008 directed further investigation. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Armoor, sent a memo to the Inspector of Police, Bheemgal, who filed a remand case diary before the Court. The Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised in the criminal petition. After getting instructions the Public Prosecutor submits that the final report dated 24.01.2008 prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police was not filed in the Court of Magistrate. The same was submitted for approval of higher Officials when the Superintendent of Police directed further investigation. She also submits that after completing the investigation the final report has been filed on 31.05.2008 and the case has been numbered as C.C.No.1029 of 2009 on the file of the Armoor Court. Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C requires Police Officer, Incharge of Police Station, to complete the investigation and forward the report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence by giving the particulars mentioned therein. A perusal of subsections (3), (7) and (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C would show that the Police Officer is not precluded to carry further investigation even after submitting a report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C if such Officer obtains further evidence oral or documentary. As the Head of the establishment it is always open to the Superintendent of Police to order further investigation. In K.Chandrasekhar v State of Kerala[1] a n d State of Andhra Pradesh v A.S.Peter[2] while explaining the distinction between “reinvestigation” and “further investigation” the Supreme Court held that further investigation as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C is always permissible and a case can be reinvestigated if so ordered by the Magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offence. In K.Chandrasekhar (supra) it was laid down as under. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after submission of police report under sub-section (2) on completion of investigation, the police has a right to “further” investigation under sub-section (8) but not “fresh investigation” or “reinvestigation”… In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a “further” report or reports – and not fresh report or reports – regarding the “further” evidence obtained during such investigation… In A.S.Peter (supra) relying on R.P.Kapur v Sardar Pratap Singh[3], Ram Lal Narang v State (Delhi Administration)[4] and State of Bihar v J.A.C.Saldanha[5], the Supreme Court laid down as under. Indisputably, the law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out of a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. A distinction also exists between further investigation and reinvestigation. Whereas reinvestigation without prior permission is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not. … It is not correct to contend that the investigation was taken up by a different agency. CID is a part of the investigating authorities of the State. A further investigation was directed by the Additional Director General of Police. Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers a police officer, superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station, to exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. It was, therefore, permissible for the higher authority to carry out or direct further investigation in the matter. In view of the provisions of Section 173 of Cr.P.C as well as the observations made by the Supreme Court extracted hereinabove, the Criminal Petition is misconceived, and is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.07.2010 vs [1] (1998) 5 SCC 223 [2] (2008) 2 SCC 383 [3] AIR 1961 SC 1117 [4] (1979) 2 SCC 322 [5] (1980) 1 SCC 554