Lucknow, May 20 The Allahabad High Court held on Wednesday that further investigation carried out by police without a court's prior permission cannot be treated as legally valid.
The Lucknow bench of the court also clarified that taking cognisance twice in the same criminal case is impermissible in law.
The bench quashed a supplementary chargesheet, a second cognisance order and an order rejecting a discharge application.
The bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh passed the order on a petition filed by Syed Mohammad Hamza under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
According to the petition, an FIR was lodged at the Malipur police station in Uttar Pradesh's Ambedkar Nagar district in 2021. The first chargesheet filed by police did not invoke the murder charge against the petitioner. Subsequently, acting on the directions of the superintendent of police, the investigating officer conducted further probe and filed a supplementary chargesheet against the petitioner under sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioner had argued that no permission was obtained from the trial court before commencing further investigation, despite the Supreme Court having categorically held in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh that prior approval of a court is mandatory for the same.
The Uttar Pradesh government admitted before the bench that further investigation was carried out on the SP's directions and without obtaining prior permission from the court.
Taking note of this, the bench observed that cognisance in the same case cannot be taken twice, particularly when the trial is already underway.
The court further found that while rejecting the discharge plea, the trial court had failed to consider the legal grounds raised by the petitioner.
In view of these circumstances, the bench quashed the supplementary chargesheet of April 29, 2023, the cognisance order of February 3, 2026, and the February 13, 2026, order rejecting the discharge application.
However, it observed that the trial court and the investigating officer would be free to proceed further in accordance with law.
