K. VADIVEL versus K. SHANTHI & ORS.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 746
K. Vadivel 
v. 
K. Shanthi & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 4058 of 2024)
30 September 2024
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Under what circumstances could the power be invoked for further 
investigation and whether on the facts, further investigation was 
warranted.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 178(3) – Further 
investigation – Applications filed by the first respondent 
for directing the State to conduct further investigation or 
re-investigation by examining the related occurrence and 
eyewitnesses of the crime mentioned in the application and 
submit additional/supplementary charge-sheet – Dismissed 
by the trial court holding that further investigation cannot be 
ordered at the post cognizance stage – However, the High 
Court allowed the application – Correctness: 
Held: Contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to 
be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness 
of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and 
mete out justice to the parties – However, the further investigation 
cannot be permitted to do a fishing and roving enquiry when the 
police had already filed a charge-sheet and the very applicant for 
further investigation, has not whispered about anything new in 
her evidence as is now sought to be averred in the application – 
There must be some reasonable basis which should trigger the 
application for further investigation so
that the court is able to 
arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require the ordering/
permitting of further investigation – Though power to order further 
investigation is a significant power it has to be exercised sparingly 
and in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice – On 
facts, the direction for further investigation absolutely unwarranted – 
Ordering the additional charge sheet to be taken on record at this 
* Author
2
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
stage pursuant to the further investigation will not be in accordance 
with law – All the stakeholders in the process have contributed to 
the delay and in spite of eleven years having elapsed after the 
incident, the trial has still not concluded – High Court allowed 
the further investigation without giving valid justification for the 
same – Denial of speedy and timely justice can be disastrous 
to rule of law in the long term – Even if the parties involved in a 
case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to delay the 
proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and stop such attempt 
instantly – Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks 
merit should not be instituted in a court – Pleadings/petitions with 
outrageous and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with 
no inhibition whatsoever – These directly impinge on the rule of 
law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential 
delay in the disposal of other cases – Such frivolous and vexatious 
proceedings to be met with due sanctions in the form of exemplary 
costs to dissuade parties from resorting to such tactics – Thus, the 
judgment of the High Court set aside as also application filed by 
the respondent no. 1 before the trial court for further investigation 
u/s. 173(8) – In view thereof, the additional charge sheet would 
not be taken on record. [Paras 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 43-47]
Case Law Cited
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors.
v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2019] 
15 SCR 936 : [2019] 17 SCC 1; Pooja Pal v. Union of India & 
Ors. [2016] 11 SCR 560 : [2016] 3 SCC 135; Ram Lal Narang 
v. State (Delhi Administration) [1979] 2 SCR 923 : [1979] 2 SCC 
322; Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2004] 
3 SCR 762 : [2004] 5 SCC 347; Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias 
Deepak & Ors. [2013] 5 SCC 762; Devendra Nath Singh v. State 
of Bihar & Ors. [2023] 1 SCC 48; Himanshu Kumar and Others 
v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [2022] 11 SCR 724 : [2022] 
SCC OnLine SC 884 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Further investigation; Re-investigation; Charge-sheet; Inherent 
powers; Delay; Rule of law; Denial of speedy and timely justice; 
Frivolous and vexatious proceedings; Sanctions; Exemplary costs; 
Additional charge sheet.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
3
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4058 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2021 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLRC (MD) No. 533 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Purushothaman Reddy, Shivansh Dubey, 
Vinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the Appellant.
Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G., S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, 
R. Sudhakaran, Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, 
Alagiri K, Sabarish Subramanian, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Vishnu 
Unnikrishnan, C. Kranthi Kumar, Danish Saifi, B. Sarathraj, Chandra 
Bhushan Tiwari, Kaustubh Shukla, Sanket Vashistha, Ms. Samridhi 
Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The present appeal mounts a challenge to the judgment and order 
dated 30.04.2021 of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court 
in Criminal R.C. (MD) No.533 of 2020. By the said judgment, the 
High Court has, by a cryptic order, and long after final arguments 
had been concluded on 19.10.2019 in the trial court, ordered further 
investigation in the matter. The aggrieved accused is before this Court 
with a grievance that the direction was not justified in law particularly 
when already an attempt by the wife of the deceased to summon 
certain witnesses under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 
1973 (Cr.P.C.) had been
rebuffed by the Trial Court and the High 
Court as early as in December 2019.
3.	
The question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court 
was, on the facts of the case, justified in ordering further investigation?
4.	
The basic facts essential for adjudication of the present controversy 
are as follows:-
4
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
5.	
On 31.03.2013, a First Information Report (FIR) being Crime No. 
27 of 2013 was registered on the complaint given by one Padikasu 
(subsequently examined as PW-1) stating that when he along with 
the deceased Kumar were doing their morning walk around 5:00 
AM and were returning back, three persons alighted from a car with 
weapons and hacked to death, the deceased Kumar.
6.	
On 11.07.2013, a final report was filed setting up eight accused for 
trial, including the appellant.
7.	
On 20.12.2016, PW-1 - Padikasu was examined. He testified that 
among the two persons who alighted from the car to attack Kumar, 
Ganapathy had a sickle in his hand; upon seeing them he began 
to run; that he phoned the family of deceased Kumar and spoke to 
the son of the deceased. PW-1 testified that he had not seen the 
hacking. He further testified that within five to ten minutes, the family 
members of Kumar came to the place and that he went to the Police 
Station at 6:45 AM and gave the complaint.
8.	
PW-1-Padikasu was declared hostile and sought to be cross-
examined by the prosecution. In the cross-examination he denied the 
suggestion that he had told the Police that he saw Ganapathy and 
Vadivel (appellant) hacking the deceased and Chinnaraja (the other 
accused) stabbing the deceased with a spear. On a question by the 
Court, he reiterated that he saw Ganapathy among the persons who 
alighted having a sickle and since he was perturbed
and began to 
run though he saw others, he was not in a position to identify them. 
His deposition was recorded on 20thof December 2016. 
9.	
Thereafter, on 18th of March 2017, the first respondent Shanthi - 
wife of the deceased was examined. She corroborated the phone 
call received from PW-1 and also stated that PW-1 told her that 
Ganapathy, Vadivel (appellant) and Karthick were the accused who 
hacked her husband with sickle and that while Chinnaraj and Selvaraj 
stabbed her husband with spear-stick, Madhavan, Murugan and 
Palaniyappan caught hold of her husband. She also testified that when 
after receiving the phone call she went to the place of the incident 
with Sathappa Subramanian and Subramanian, her brothers-in-law 
and that her own brothers also accompanied her. On 18.03.2017 
itself, PW-3, Subbaiah and PW-4, Duraimurugan were examined. 
10.	 On 25.07.2019, PW-1 - Padikasu was recalled at the behest of 
accused A1 and A2 wherein he stated that he did not specifically
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
5
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
state to the Police about A1 Ganapathy being present in the place of 
occurrence and that he had only stated that three unidentified persons 
had attacked the deceased. He further added that he mentioned 
about A1 Ganapathy only on account of the Police threatening him. 
11.	 On 19.10.2019, on the conclusion of the trial, final arguments were 
heard, and the case was fixed for filing of written arguments.
12.	 At this stage, on 22.10.2019, Respondent No. 1 (examined as PW-2/
wife of the deceased) filed Crl. M.P.No.245 of 2019 under Section 
311 of the Cr.P.C. She contended that PW-1 - Padikasu has given 
false evidence; that the Investigating Officer has failed to enquire 
the proper eye-witnesses; that the direct eye-witnesses to the 
occurrence-K. Ganesh S/o Kumar, P. Karmegam S/o Periyakaruppan, 
K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Andiappan 
S/o Chinnaiah have not been examined and that they deserve to 
be summoned. According to the application filed by respondent No. 
1, these witnesses would speak about the cell phone recovered by 
the Police from the occurrence spot and that the cell phone was of 
Nokia Brand holding the sim of Vodafone company which belonged 
to her. She averred that the Police failed to produce the material 
object and that the cell phone and call details ought to have been 
produced by the Police. In view of the above, she prayed that the 
additional witnesses be summoned and
examined. 
13.	 The accused opposed the Section 311 petition by pointing out the 
delay of 6 years and 9 months in filing the petition and also about 
respondent No.1 (PW-2) not whispering about any of these facts 
during her examination. They contended that the persons sought to 
be examined were none other than her son, brother, brothers-in-law 
and other close relatives.
14.	 The State also filed its response opposing the application by averring 
that when the statement of Respondent No. 1 was recorded nothing 
was mentioned by her and that during the investigation also nothing 
of the nature as alleged now was forthcoming; that even while being 
examined as PW-2 the applicant had not mentioned these facts; 
that no phone was seized and no sim card was seized and that 
investigation was properly conducted and final report filed. 
15.	 On 29.11.2019, the Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by 
respondent No. 1. The Court observed that the application was filed
6
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
after the examination of the prosecution witnesses had concluded 
and when the case was posted for questioning the accused under 
Section 313. That respondent No. 1 was already examined as 
PW-2 on 18.03.2017 and that on that day itself, together with her, 
Subbaiah alias Subramanian and Duraimurugan were also examined 
as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively. The Court observed that though 
the power under Section 311 is available to the Court to reach a just 
decision, it cannot be exercised unless the facts and circumstances 
of the case make it apparent as otherwise it would result in causing 
serious prejudice to the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. 
The Court observed that though the power is available, it has to be 
exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
16.	 The first respondent, vide Crl. O.P (MD) No. 18701 of 2019, challenged 
the order dated 29.11.2019 dismissing the petition under Section 311 
Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The State vehemently opposed the 
said petition by reiterating its contention in the courts below. The 
High Court, by its order of 16.12.2019, dismissed Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 
18701 of 2019 holding in its operative portion as follows:
“9. It is seen that P.W.1 is the person who stated to 
have accompanied the deceased victim at the time of 
occurrence. He had been examined by the respondent 
police. He had not stated anything as if the occurrence was 
witnessed either by other persons other
than him. He was 
examined in chief before the trial court on 18.03.2017. On 
that date also, he has not spoken about the occurrence 
having been witnessed by any other persons other than 
him. Further, during cross examination, he has also resiled 
from his earlier statement. P.W.2 has been examined in 
chief on 18.03.2017. She has also not spoken about the 
additional witnesses having seen the occurrence or that 
they have been left out by the prosecution to be added as 
witnesses in the final report. Further, after final report has 
been filed on 11.07.2013, if it is true that the eyewitnesses 
have been left out, she would have filed the petition for 
further investigation even at that time, which has also not 
been done. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that 
the petition is filed much belatedly only for the purpose 
of delaying the trial.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
7
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
10. In view of the above, this Court does not find any 
infirmity in the order passed by the trial Judge. Accordingly, 
this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.”
17.	 Taking a cue, as it were, from the observations of the High Court that 
the first respondent would have filed a petition seeking for further 
investigation at that time if eyewitnesses have been left out, the first 
respondent in January, 2020 filed Cr. M.P. No 40/2020 in S.C. No. 
61/2014 before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge 
with a prayer for directing the State to conduct further investigation or 
reinvestigation by examining the related occurrence and eyewitnesses 
of the crime mentioned in the application and submit additional (or) 
supplementary charge-sheet. In the application, it was averred that 
the Investigating Officer had failed to enquire Kattarimani who had 
accompanied her husband-deceased Kumar and also had failed to 
examine proper eyewitnesses; that PW-1 Padikasu had given false 
statements and evidence and that Padikasu had expressed fear 
and mentioned about the threatening influences of the accused and 
other pressures brought by the accused; that investigation has been 
carried out in a haphazard manner; that there is lack of collection of 
material evidence; that the cell phone used by PW-1 Padikasu and 
the cell phone of deceased Kumar has not been properly secured 
and placed for tracing the call
details. That non-examination of R. 
Natarajan, M. Muthu, S. Ramasamy who are the occurrence witnesses 
and eye witnesses K. Ganesan S/o Late Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o 
Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, Sembulingam S/o Padikasu 
and C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah are designed at the behest of the 
inspector of police. 
18.	 It will be noticed from the application that insofar as the eyewitnesses, 
who according to the first respondent were not enquired, the names 
are common as mentioned in her earlier Section 311 application. 
Under the category of occurrence witnesses, she has added three 
names which surfaced for the first time in this application. This aspect 
will be considered later in this judgment. 
19.	 The application was strongly opposed by the accused. The accused, 
in their counter, averred that the application was not maintainable 
without the consent of the public prosecutor and that the misconceived 
application was intended to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution; 
the allegation that any threat to witnesses were denied and it was
8
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
contended that no such complaint was made in the last seven years 
about any such threats being administered and even on 18.03.2017 
when the respondent no. 1 (PW-2) along with her brothers PW-3 
and PW-4 were examined, no such complaint was made. The 
accused further averred that further investigation cannot be ordered 
at the post cognizance stage either suo moto or at the instance of 
victims/complainants and it can only be done at the behest of the 
investigating agency. The accused further averred that after the 
section 311 Cr.P.C. petition, namely, Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 18701 of 
2019 was dismissed even Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination had been 
concluded and thereafter the accused had concluded oral arguments 
and filed written arguments. So contending, they had prayed for the 
dismissal of the petition for further investigation. 
20.	 The State also opposed the application stating that the case has been 
investigated properly and charge-sheet filed; that the respondent no. 
1 has recorded her statement and her earlier application to examine 
additional witnesses has been dismissed and that the present 
application is only with an intent to drag the proceeding. 
21.	 The trial court dismissed the petition for further investigation by its 
order of 23rd July, 2020. The trial court held that the respondent no. 
1 (PW-2) in her examination on 18.03.2017 in court did not speak 
anything as to about what she is mentioning now
in the application. 
That final report was filed as early as on 11.07.2013 and if her 
contention is correct, she would have filed a petition for further 
investigation at that very time. The trial court further held that further 
investigation cannot be ordered at the post cognizance stage either 
suo moto or at the instance of victims/complainants or at the instance 
of anyone else except the investigating agency and that the petition 
was only filed to prolong the proceeding. 
22.	 The respondent No. 1 filed a criminal revision before the High Court 
to which the accused filed a counter reiterating the contentions. By 
the impugned order, without any discussion whatsoever and holding 
the following in the operative portion, the High Court allowed the 
application: 
“10. It is seen that an opportunity to examine additional 
witness was not given by this Court on the ground that the 
petitioner has not filed a petition for further investigation. 
In the above circumstances, dening (sic.) a relief of further
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
9
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
investigation may cause prejudice to the petitioner. It is 
stated that P.W.1 turned hostile. This is a murder case. For 
the above reasons, it is decided that further investigation 
is necessary. The order passed in Crl.M.P.No.40 of 2020 
in S.C.No.61 of 2014 dated 23.07.2020 on the file of the 
learned Additional District Judge, Pudukottai is set aside. 
The investigation agency is hereby directed to take up 
the case for further investigation and to complete the 
investigation, after examining all the witnesses referred by 
the petitioner and to file a additional chargesheet within a 
period of three months. 
11. On receipt of the additional chargesheet, the trial 
Court is directed to frame charges afresh and to proceed 
with the trial and to dispose of the case as expeditiously 
as possible.”
23.	 The present Special Leave Petition has been filed on 14.03.2022. 
By an order of 16.08.2022, this Court, while issuing notice, stayed 
the operation of the impugned order. It appears that before the filing 
of the Special Leave Petition, the additional charge-sheet also came 
to be prepared on 02.12.2021. 
24.	 We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior advocate, for 
the appellant as well as Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Additional 
Advocate General, for the State as well as Shri S. Nagamuthu, 
learned senior advocate, for the respondent No. 1 (wife of the 
deceased). 
25.	 The learned senior counsel for the
appellant contends that the 
present application filed by respondent no. 1 is a disguised attempt 
to reopen the earlier proceedings under Section 311 which attained 
finality; that after framing of charges, respondent no. 1, who is not 
a complainant, cannot file an application for further investigation 
under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.; that the trial court had no jurisdiction 
to entertain the application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. after 
framing of charges; that no grounds have been made out for further 
investigation and that the High Court ought not to have interfered 
with the order of trial court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 
Learned senior counsel relied on several judgments of this Court to 
support the contentions.
10
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
26.	 The learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the 
learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 1 strongly defended 
the impugned order. They contended that the interest of justice is 
paramount and it will even trump the need to avoid any delay being 
caused in the proceedings; that the investigating agency has carried 
out further investigation in compliance with the impugned order and 
prepared the additional charge-sheet on 02.12.2021 bringing out 
certain new facts and material; that no prejudice is caused to the 
defence as the material will be furnished to the accused persons and 
they will have ample opportunity to put forth their defence. To support 
their stand, learned senior counsel referred to several precedents.
27.	 We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels 
for the parties, perused the records as well as written submissions 
filed by them. 
28.	 The legal position on the aspect of further investigation is fairly well 
settled. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pursuant to the 
recommendation of the Law Commission, in its 41st Report, Section 
173(8) has been expressly engrafted setting at rest any controversy 
that may have obtained earlier. Section 173(8) reads as under:
“173(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude 
further investigation in respect of an offence after a report 
under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate
and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge 
of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or 
documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further 
report or reports regarding such evidence in the form 
prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) 
shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report 
or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded 
under sub-section (2).” 
29.	 The question really is, under what circumstances could this power 
be invoked and whether on the facts of this case, is a further 
investigation warranted. 
30.	 There was some debate at the Bar as to whether the Addl. District 
and Sessions Judge before whom the application was filed by the 
respondent no. 1 under Section 173(8) after the conclusion of the 
evidence could have ordered further investigation. The premise of
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
11
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
the argument was even though in the present case the Addl. District 
and Sessions Judge has not ordered and it was the High Court which 
had ordered it, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 read 
with 401 of Cr.P.C. The contention was that as per the law laid down 
by this Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. vs. State of 
Gujarat & Anr. (2019) 17 SCC 1, further investigation could at best 
have been ordered till the commencement of the trial. 
31.	 In the present case, though the Trial Judge rejected the application, 
the High Court has ordered further investigation. Considering the 
fact that we are inclined to set aside the order of the High Court, on 
merits, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the issue of jurisdiction. 
32.	 Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have 
to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of 
further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete 
out justice to the parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. 
(2016) 3 SCC 135, para 83). As noticed in Ram Lal Narang vs. 
State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322, (para 20) where 
fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not 
previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where 
it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person 
already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty 
of the
investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the 
same and submit a report to the court. 
33.	 However, the further investigation cannot be permitted to do a fishing 
and roving enquiry when the police had already filed a charge-sheet 
and the very applicant for further investigation, in this case respondent 
no. 1, has not whispered about anything new in her evidence as is 
now sought to be averred in the application. There must be some 
reasonable basis which should trigger the application for further 
investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that 
ends of justice require the ordering/permitting of further investigation. 
In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2004) 
5 SCC 347), this Court held as under:-
“13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 
2 SCC 322] it was observed by this Court that further 
investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because 
cognisance has been taken by the court. When defective 
investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may
12
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so 
permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more 
so in this case, that the police should inform the court 
and seek formal permission to make further investigation 
when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over 
the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial 
since an effective trial for real or actual offences found 
during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, 
desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of 
the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position 
in law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the 
same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The 
mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding 
the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation 
if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do 
real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make 
it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on 
the merits of the case.”
34.	 In Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 
762, this Court dealing with the aspect of the power of Magistrate 
to direct further investigation had the following to say: 
“41. …..The power of the Magistrate to direct “further 
investigation” is a significant power which has to be 
exercised sparingly, in exceptional cases and to achieve the 
ends of justice. To provide fair, proper and
unquestionable 
investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency 
and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to 
ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under 
the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate 
or by the police of its own accord and, for valid reasons, 
would lead to the filing of a supplementary report. Such 
supplementary report shall be dealt with as part of the 
primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions 
of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such 
reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code.”
35.	 It is essential to note that this Court emphasized that though power 
to order further investigation is a significant power it has to be 
exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
13
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
of justice (see Devendra Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 
(2023) 1 SCC 48, para 45). Whether further investigation should or 
should not be ordered is within the discretion of the Magistrate and 
the said discretion is to be exercised on the facts of each case in 
accordance with law. This Court also held that in an appropriate case, 
where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper 
direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so 
demand, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be 
exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. This 
Court reiterated the principle that even under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 
the wide powers are to be exercised fairly with circumspection and 
in exceptional cases. 
36.	 In Himanshu Kumar and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and 
others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884 dealing with the prayer for 
transfer of investigation to CBI, this Court had the following to say:
“47. ….We are conscious of the fact that though a 
satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective 
investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the 
precondition for a direction for further investigation or re-
investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or 
the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive 
impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant 
circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and 
analyzed
to decide the needfulness of further investigation 
or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice 
to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the 
court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true 
facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, 
resolved and a competent investigating agency.”
37.	 Applying the above law to the facts of the present case, we find 
that for the following reasons the direction for further investigation 
is absolutely unwarranted:- 
i.	
The application for further investigation was filed in January 
2020 by respondent no. 1. The charge sheet under Section 173 
Cr.P.C. too had been filed as early as on 11.07.2013. 
ii.	
On 20th December, 2016, PW-1 Padikasu was examined, he 
was recalled and cross-examined on 25.07.2019.
14
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
iii.	
Respondent No. 1 (who is the applicant for further investigation) 
herself was examined on 18.03.2017. There is no whisper in 
her deposition about what she now seeks to contend in the 
application for further investigation. There was nothing that had 
prevented her from deposing in the box about any failure of 
the investigating officer, to enquire Kattarimani or any person 
concerned; about R. Natrajan, M. Muthu and S. Ramasamy 
being occurrence witnesses and about K.Ganesan S/o Late 
Kumar, P. Karmagan S/o Periyakaruppan, K. Rajendran S/o Kasi, 
Sembulingam S/o Padikasu and C. Audiappan S/o Chinnaiah 
being eye witnesses, and about how such failure has caused 
prejudice.
iv.	
In fact, seeking the examination of these five witnesses 
mentioned hereinabove, first respondent filed application under 
Section 311 Cr.P.C. which came to be dismissed by the trial 
court on 29.11.2019 and was confirmed by the High Court. 
The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. itself was filed on 
22.10.2019, that is after a period of about six years after the 
filing of the charge-sheet. 
v.	
It is only when the High Court dismissed her petition under 
Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that she had not made any prayer 
for further investigation that she filed the present application in 
January, 2020. At the stage when she filed the application for 
further investigation, the accused had concluded oral arguments 
and had also filed written
arguments. 
vi.	
The trial court dismissed the application stating that the 
respondent no. 1 when examined as PW-2 did not speak 
anything about what she had mentioned in her application and 
that though the final report was filed as early as on 11.07.2013, 
respondent no. 1 has filed the application for further investigation 
only in January, 2020. Though, the trial court held that no further 
investigation could be ordered at the post cognizance stage, 
we have, as explained above, not proceeded on that reasoning, 
since that is clearly erroneous. 
vii.	 The High Court has not recorded any reason whatsoever 
and has not set out any legal principle which is relevant and 
applicable to the facts. All that is said is the Section 311 petition 
of the respondent no. 1 has been denied on the ground that
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
15
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
she has not filed a petition for further investigation; that denial 
of relief would cause prejudice to respondent no. 1; that PW-1 
has turned hostile and that being a murder case, it is decided 
to order for further investigation. Not one of the legal principles 
adverted to hereinabove has been considered by the Court. 
viii.	 As pointed out hereinabove, the failure to claim further 
investigation at that stage was not the only basis for the High 
Court to reject the revision against the dismissal of the Section 
311 application. The High Court had given other detailed reasons 
also like PW-1 and PW-2 not whispering about the additional 
witnesses, when they deposed in Court. 
38.	 We are convinced that ordering the additional charge sheet to be 
taken on record at this stage pursuant to the further investigation 
will not be in accordance with law. It will be contrary to the settled 
principles as laid down by this Court. We have also to satisfy ourselves 
examined the additional charge sheet placed before us. Primarily, 
apart from explaining the motive which is already set out in the 
evidence of PW-2, there is a reference to three of these witnesses 
named in this application as having come to rescue of the deceased 
after hearing the noise raised by the deceased. It is now alleged 
that A-5 tried to prevent the said two witnesses from approaching 
Kumar and threatened them with the sickle. It is also alleged that
at 
that point these witnesses saw A-1 and A-4 committing overt acts 
on the deceased. 
39.	 As pointed out earlier, when the application under Section 311 
Cr.P.C. was filed on 22.10.2019, the State, in its response and in 
the arguments before the Court vehemently opposed the application. 
Even before the High Court in the Revision filed against the dismissal 
of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the Additional Public 
Prosecutor appearing for the State had expressly contended that 
the respondent no. 1 was examined more than five times by the 
investigating officer and even in her deposition in court had not 
adverted to any of these aspects. 
40.	 Before the trial court and the High Court in the present set of 
proceedings concerning the application for further investigation, the 
State had opposed the prayer contending that the investigation of 
the case has been done properly and charge-sheet had been duly 
filed arraigning all the allegedly involved individuals.
16
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
41.	 It is only in this Court that the State has vehemently defended the order. 
A counter affidavit was filed by the State in this Court in September, 
2024 without offering any tenable justification for the need for further 
investigation. We direct that for all these reasons the additional charges 
ought not to be taken on the record of the trial Court. 
42.	 A brief postscript. While it is true that delay in trial will cede to the 
pursuit of truth, however, a distinction should be made between 
cases where there exist genuine grounds to hold up the proceedings 
and cases where such grounds do not exist. This case is a classic 
example of the latter category. The FIR was filed on 31.03.2013 
and the charge-sheet on 11.07.2013. At the fag end of the trial in 
October 2019, on the eve of the final arguments, the first round of 
applications under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed, which 
culminated in its dismissal in December, 2019. 
43.	 Soon thereafter in January, 2020, virtually the same grounds which 
had been rejected earlier were rehashed in the form of an application 
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 
The State, which had hitherto opposed all the applications up to the 
High Court, turned turtle and stoutly supported the respondent no. 
1 in this Court without offering any tenable justification as to how 
the earlier investigation which had arrayed eight accused for trial
lacked credibility.
44.	 The net result has been that all the stakeholders in the process have 
contributed to the delay and in spite of eleven years having elapsed 
after the incident, the trial has still not concluded. No doubt, the High 
Court allowed the further investigation which we have today reversed. 
The judgment of the High Court also gave no valid justification for 
ordering a further investigation. 
45.	 The victims of crime, the accused, and the society at large have a 
legitimate expectation that justice will be available to the parties within 
a reasonable time. It is beyond cavil that speedy and timely justice is 
an important facet of rule of law. Denial of speedy and timely justice 
can be disastrous to rule of law in the long term. Even if the parties 
involved in a case themselves, with no valid justification attempt to 
delay the proceedings, the courts need to be vigilant and nip any 
such attempt in the bud instantly. The administration of justice feeds 
on the faith of the citizenry and nothing should be done to even 
remotely shake that faith and confidence.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
17
K. Vadivel v. K. Shanthi & Ors.
46.	 The legal profession has an important role to play in the process. 
Any proceeding or application which prima facie lacks merit should 
not be instituted in a court. We are constrained to observe this 
because of late we notice that pleadings/petitions with outrageous 
and ex facie unbelievable averments are made with no inhibition 
whatsoever. This is especially so in some family law proceedings, 
both civil and criminal. Reading some of the averments therein, we 
are left to wonder whether at all the deponents were conscious of 
what has been written purportedly on their behalf, before appending 
their signatures. These misadventures directly impinge on the rule 
of law, because they add to the pendency and the consequential 
delay in the disposal of other cases which are crying for justice. It is 
time that such frivolous and vexatious proceedings are met with due 
sanctions in the form of exemplary costs to dissuade parties from 
resorting to such tactics. If we have desisted from such a course 
in this case, it is only because the High Court allowed the petition 
and it is here that we have, reversing the High Court, dismissed the 
petition for further investigation. 
47.	 In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we set aside the 
judgment of the High Court dated 30.04.2021 in Criminal RC (MD) 
No. 533 of 2020. Consequently Cr. M.P. No 40/2020 in S.C. No. 
61/2014 filed by the respondent no. 1 before the
Court of Additional 
District and Sessions Judge for further investigation under Section 
173(8) Cr.P.C. would stand dismissed. We further direct that, in view 
of the dismissal of the application, the additional charge sheet dated 
02.12.2021 will not be taken on record. The appeal is, accordingly, 
allowed.
48.	 We direct that after hearing arguments of parties afresh, the trial 
should be concluded and judgment pronounced within eight weeks 
from today. 
Result of the Case: Appeal allowed
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain