Meaning of the term Further investigation stipulated in Section 173(2) CrPC.

The term further investigation mentioned in section 173(8) of CrPC would mean obtaining fresh oral or documentary evidence. The police under this section is obligated to gather fresh evidence (oral or documentary) and only then a supplementary chargesheet / report ought to be filed by the police. If the police does not file any fresh evidence and only reevaluates or reassess evidence already available with it then such a report would not satisfy the requirements of 173(8) CrPC and the Magistrate may not take into cognizance / notice of it.

The Supreme Court has clarified the aforesaid issue in the case titled Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. Versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr (Criminal Appeal No 335/2024). The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment have reproduced below.

25. As previously noted, the Appellants stand accused of forging the signatures of Respondent No. 2 on the passport application of the minor child. The investigating agency initially found insufficient evidence to support charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Accordingly, no chargesheet was filed under these provisions. However, in compliance with the Trial Magistrate’s order dated 24.06.2015, a supplementary chargesheet was submitted under Sections 468, 471 and 201 IPC and Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.

26. It is a matter of record that in the course of ‘further investigation’, no new material was unearthed by the investigating agency. Instead, the supplementary chargesheet relies upon the Truth Lab report dated 15.07.2013, obtained by Respondent No. 2, which was already available when the original chargesheet was filed. The term ‘further investigation’ stipulated in Section 173(8) CrPC obligates the officer in charge of the concerned police station to ‘obtain further evidence, oral or documentary’, and only then forward a supplementary report regarding such evidence, in the prescribed form.

27. The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than reevaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report, known as the chargesheet under Section 173(2) CrPC. In the absence of any new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) CrPC. What becomes apparent from the facts on record of this case is that the investigating agency acted mechanically, in purported compliance with the Trial Magistrate’s order dated 24.06.2015.