Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that even after taking cognizance, power under Section 173 (8) of CrPC can be exercised by the Magistrate suo moto to direct the police to conduct further investigation.   

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court held this in the case of Dharam Chand v. State of H.P. (2025). 

What was the Background of Dharam Chand v. State of H.P. (2025) Case?   

• A complaint was filed by Lal Chand, Clerk at the HP Milk Federation, Mandi Unit, alleging milk was being sold en route to the plant and proceeds were embezzled. 
• FIR No. 10/2002 was registered on 01.07.2002 against Dharam Chand and others under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• Dharam Chand, Incharge of MCC Kataula, was responsible for collecting milk from various Co-operative Societies and delivering it to the Chakkar Milk Plant. 
• An inquiry revealed that milk worth ₹5,56,656 was received less at the Chakkar unit between June 1994 and March 2001. 
• Specifically, for April 1995 to March 1996, 12,683 liters of milk worth ₹1,07,198 were found to be less deposited, allegedly due to illegal sale by the petitioner during transit. 
• During the trial, Dharam Chand moved an application under Section 227 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking discharge, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the application and directed the police to conduct further investigation and refile the charge sheet if necessary. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a criminal revision before the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that the Trial Court was empowered under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct further investigation even after taking cognizance. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) which held that a Magistrate can suo motu direct further investigation before the trial begins. 
• The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution demands a fair and just investigation, which may warrant further inquiry to uncover the truth. 
• The Court found that the initial investigation was incomplete, particularly concerning whether the proceeds from sold milk were deposited in the government treasury via TR-V bills. 
• It held that without complete investigation into these aspects, discharging the accused at this stage would be premature. 
• The revision petition was dismissed, and the order of the Trial Court for further investigation was upheld as legal and justified. 

What is Further Investigation? 

• Section 173 (8) of CrPC provides for further investigation. 
  • This provision allows for further investigation of an offence even after a police report (charge sheet) under Section 173(2) has been submitted to the Magistrate. 
  • If, during such further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains new evidence, whether oral or documentary, he is required to submit a supplementary report to the Magistrate. 
  • The supplementary report must be in the prescribed format, similar to the original charge sheet. 
  • The procedural rules contained in sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 shall, as far as applicable, also apply to these supplementary reports. 
  • This provision ensures that investigation remains open and flexible, allowing the discovery of additional facts to ensure justice. 
• This provision is now provided under Section 193 (9) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• Section 193 (9) of BNSS also adds a  proviso which was not in Section 173 (8) of CrPC: 
  • The Proviso provides that: 
    • Further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court. 

What is the Landmark Judgment on Further Investigation? 

• Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2019) 
  • The Court criticized the view that a Magistrate's power to order further investigation ceases once process is issued or the accused appears before the court. 
  • The judgment clarified that a criminal trial begins only after charges are framed, not merely after cognizance is taken. 
  • The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Constitution requires a fair and just investigation, which may necessitate further inquiry. 
  • It noted that the police retain the power to conduct further investigation up to the trial stage, subject to Magistrate’s permission under Section 173(8) CrPC. 
  • The idea that a Magistrate’s supervisory jurisdiction ends mid-way through pre-trial proceedings was declared a travesty of justice. 
  • The Magistrate’s powers are derived from Sections 156(1), 156(3), 2(h), and 173(8) CrPC, and are available at all pre-trial stages. 
  • The Court affirmed that a Magistrate can even suo motu order further investigation, based on the facts of the case. 
  • It stressed that uncovering the truth and ensuring justice (including identifying the guilty and protecting the innocent) is more important than avoiding delay.