About the Contributor:
Gurmeet Singh Jaggi | Legal Contract Lifecycle Management Professional
A specialist in the architecture of complex commercial frameworks, Gurmeet Singh Jaggi brings over five years of post-qualification expertise to the field of Legal Contract Lifecycle Management. His practice is centred on the meticulous drafting and negotiation of instruments that define modern commerce, with a particular emphasis on SaaS, information technology, IP, and procurement.
In an era where legal precision is increasingly integrated with technology, Gurmeet is a seasoned hand in the deployment of digital systems to oversee the entire contractual journey. He holds deep-seated proficiency in industry-standard platforms, including Icertis, DocuSign CLM, Coupa, and Ariba, ensuring that legal operations are as efficient as they are robust.
Guided by a commitment to clarity and strategic foresight, Gurmeet offers a perspective shaped by both technical rigour and a disciplined approach to the law. For a more comprehensive look at his work and to engage with his latest professional updates, you may connect with him via the link below.
In a judgment that serves as a stern reminder that the police are not a law unto themselves, the Supreme Court of India has come down hard on the practice of investigating agencies launching “further investigations” without so much as a “by your leave” from the judiciary.
The Bench made it crystal clear that, once a court has put its seal of approval on a closure report, the police cannot simply reopen the stable doors on their own whim.
The Bone of Contention
The matter arose from a 2013 FIR involving grave allegations of gang rape. After a long and winding road of investigation, which saw the case travel from the local Mahila Police Station to the Crime Branch in Mathura, the police eventually threw in the towel. They filed a Final Report in 2014, citing a lack of evidence and glaring contradictions in the complainant’s story.
The Judicial Magistrate at Firozabad, having given the complainant ample opportunity to object, to which there was a stony silence, duly accepted the report in September 2015.
However, years later, following a nudge from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the State Government decided to have another bite at the cherry. The Under Secretary and the Superintendent of Police bypassed the Court and directed the CBCID to start a fresh “further investigation”.
The Legal Rub
The central question for the Bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Vijay Bishnoi, was whether the police can play fast and loose with the procedure laid down in Section 173(8) of the CrPC, now mirrored in Section 193(9) of the BNSS. Can they unilaterally decide to investigate further after a Magistrate has already shuttered the case?
The Court’s answer was a resounding “No”.
It is not optional to have judicial oversight.
Although the police have the authority to look for additional evidence, the court pointed out that they must first speak with the magistrate.
The Rule of Propriety: The Court noted that asking for permission has evolved over time from a simple courtesy to a legal requirement.
No Unfettered Power: The bench was outraged by the superintendent of police’s actions, calling the decision to circumvent the court an unworthy act that calls into question the legitimacy of the law itself.
Judicial Mind versus Executive Will: The investigating agency must submit an application so that the magistrate can use their judicial mind to determine whether additional investigation is necessary.
Restoring the Truth
Drawing heavily from the Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali precedent, the Court noted that although the law may seem to be silent on the need for “leave,” the doctrine of contemporanea expositio which interprets the law based on long-standing practice makes judicial permission necessary.
The Bench also noted, almost as a postscript to the procedural lapse, that DNA reports obtained during this unauthorized second innings had already returned negative, failing to link the appellants to the alleged crime.
The Verdict
Setting aside the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court quashed the executive orders for further investigation.
While the appeal was allowed, the Court was careful not to upset the apple cart regarding a pending criminal revision filed by the original complainant, leaving that to be decided on its own merits by the District Judge.
Case: Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 120
Date of Order: 04.02.2026.
See the Order: Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
