further investigation and supplementary chargesheet once an investigation report is filed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17th October, 2023
Pronounced on: 21st December, 2023
+ W.P.(CRL) 1891/2023 CRL.M.A. 17499/2023(Stay)
R.K. GUPTA & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Ranjana Roy Gawai, Ms.
Vashudha Sen, Mr. Vineet Wadhwa,
Mr. Sharian Mukherji, Mr. Mueed
Shah, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara and
Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE
AFFAIRS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, Senior Panel Counsel
Mr. Chetanya Puri, Government
Pleader
Mr. Nitin Agnihotri, Prosecutor for the
SFIO with Mr. Shriram Tiwary,
Mr. Salman Razi, Mr. Upanshu,
Mr. Nitin Agnihotri, Advocates.
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMAFurther Investigation by the SFIO
29. In line with the aforesaid observation, the contention of learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that there can be no further investigation and
supplementary chargesheet once an investigation report is filed by the SFIO is
also not tenable as Section 173(8) of the CrPC clearly provides for further
investigation, as under:

173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
*** *** ***
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation
in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer
in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary,
he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such
evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6)
shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they
apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).
It is further pertinent to note that this Court has perused the record and
does not find any document to show that after the learned Special Court has
taken cognizance on 20.09.2022, the petitioners herein have been asked to
join any further investigation by the SFIO.
Conclusion
30. In view of the above discussion, the conclusions of this Court can be
summarized as under:
i. Petitioner no.1, being a Key Managerial Personnel in terms of Section
2(51) of the Act would not need a separate approval for purposes of
investigation in terms of Section 219(d) of the Act. The provisions of
Section 219(d) of the Act as explained hereinabove would not cover the
case of petitioner no.1.
ii. Since the complaint itself reflects that investigations were conducted
with respect to the affairs of petitioner no. 2, the same would be
covered under the provisions of Section 219 of the Act. However, the
effect of not taking such prior approval would not ipso facto render the
cognizance taken qua petitioner no. 2 by learned Special Court as
invalid.
Digitally Signed
By:RANJU BHALLA
Signing Date:21.12.2023
18:50:07
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 1891/2023 Page 40 of 40
iii. From a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of
the CrPC and the present Act, as quoted hereinabove, it cannot be said
that the SFIO is barred from investigating an offence under the IPC.
iv. SFIO is not barred from conducting a further investigation in
accordance with law. Further Investigation by the SFIO
29. In line with the aforesaid observation, the contention of learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that there can be no further investigation and
supplementary chargesheet once an investigation report is filed by the SFIO is
also not tenable as Section 173(8) of the CrPC clearly provides for further
investigation, as under:

173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
*** *** ***
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation
in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer
in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary,
he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such
evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6)
shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they
apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).
It is further pertinent to note that this Court has perused the record and
does not find any document to show that after the learned Special Court has
taken cognizance on 20.09.2022, the petitioners herein have been asked to
join any further investigation by the SFIO.
Conclusion
30. In view of the above discussion, the conclusions of this Court can be
summarized as under:
i. Petitioner no.1, being a Key Managerial Personnel in terms of Section
2(51) of the Act would not need a separate approval for purposes of
investigation in terms of Section 219(d) of the Act. The provisions of
Section 219(d) of the Act as explained hereinabove would not cover the
case of petitioner no.1.
ii. Since the complaint itself reflects that investigations were conducted
with respect to the affairs of petitioner no. 2, the same would be
covered under the provisions of Section 219 of the Act. However, the
effect of not taking such prior approval would not ipso facto render the
cognizance taken qua petitioner no. 2 by learned Special Court as
invalid.

iii. From a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of
the CrPC and the present Act, as quoted hereinabove, it cannot be said
that the SFIO is barred from investigating an offence under the IPC.
iv. SFIO is not barred from conducting a further investigation in
accordance with law.