The Allahabad High Court held that police cannot conduct further investigation without prior court permission and clarified that taking cognizance twice in the same criminal case after commencement of trial proceedings is legally impermissible, while deciding a plea filed by Syed Mohammad Hamza.
The Allahabad High Court has held that further investigation conducted by police without obtaining prior permission from the court cannot be treated as legally valid. The Lucknow Bench of the High Court also clarified that taking cognizance twice in the same criminal case is impermissible under law, particularly when trial proceedings have already commenced.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Shree Prakash Singh while deciding a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Syed Mohammad Hamza.
Background of the Case
According to the case records, an FIR was registered in 2021 at Malipur Police Station in Ambedkar Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh. Following investigation, the police initially filed a chargesheet in the case. However, the first chargesheet did not invoke charges of murder against the petitioner.
Subsequently, acting on directions issued by the Superintendent of Police, the investigating officer carried out further investigation in the matter and later filed a supplementary chargesheet adding offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code relating to murder and destruction of evidence.
The petitioner challenged the legality of the supplementary chargesheet as well as subsequent proceedings before the High Court.
Arguments of Parties:
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the investigating agency had commenced further investigation without obtaining prior permission from the trial court. It was contended that the Supreme Court of India had already clarified in Pramod Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh that prior approval of the court is mandatory before conducting further investigation after filing of a chargesheet.
The petitioner therefore argued that the supplementary chargesheet filed against him was legally unsustainable. During the hearing, the State government admitted before the Bench that the further investigation had indeed been conducted on the directions of the Superintendent of Police and without obtaining any prior permission from the court.
Observations of the High Court
Taking note of the admitted position, the High Court observed that cognizance in the same criminal case cannot be taken twice, especially when the trial process is already underway. The Court held that once cognizance had already been taken on the original chargesheet, a second cognizance order based on an improperly initiated supplementary investigation was not legally sustainable.
The Bench further noted that the trial court, while rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application, had failed to adequately consider the legal objections raised regarding the validity of the supplementary investigation and subsequent proceedings.
In view of the procedural irregularities and legal infirmities, the High Court proceeded to quash multiple proceedings arising from the supplementary investigation.
The Court set aside:
- The supplementary chargesheet dated April 29, 2023;
- The cognisance order dated February 3, 2026; and
- The order dated February 13, 2026 rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application.
However, while granting relief to the petitioner, the Court clarified that the investigating officer and the trial court would remain free to proceed further strictly in accordance with law and after following the legally prescribed procedure.
The judgment reiterates the importance of judicial oversight in criminal investigations and reinforces procedural safeguards governing further investigation after submission of a chargesheet.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE