Law On Investigation- Further Investigation- Re-Investigation- De-novo Investigation- Free And Fair Investigation

                                                                                                 Investigation Law Contours And Outlines

(i) Free And Fair Investigation;

(ii) Further Investigation;

(iii) Re-Investigation;

(iv) De-novo Investigation.

                                                                                     Vital Questions Of Law On The Outlined Subjects (Supra)

(v) In the paragraph-42 of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (infra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India framed the following question of law- “10.Whether after a Charge-sheet is filed by the police, the Magistrate has power to order further investigation and if so upto what stage of a criminal procedure.

(vi) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR 2021 SC 1918- The SC has observed in Paragraph-8 onwards, the rights and duties of the police to investigate into cognizable offences, relying upon King EmperorVs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad- AIR 1945 PC 18- to say that in India, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of alleged cognizable crime without requiring any Authority from the judicial authorities.

(vii) In Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja- (2003) 6 SCC 195- the Supreme Court observed in Paragraph-20 as under:- "Thus, the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation, which would mean from the time of the lodging of the first information report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of the police station in court under Section 173 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, this field being exclusively reserved for the Investigating Agency".

(viii) In State of Orissa Vs. Ujjal Kumr Burdhan- (2012) 4 SCC 547, the Supreme Court had answered the question when the High Courts find it fit to interfere, issuing one direction or the other to the investigating agency, the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India had observed that unless a case of gross abuse of power is made out against those incharge of investigation, the High Court should be loathe to interfere at early/premature stage of investigation.

                                                                                             Laws Governing The Spectrum Of Investigation

(i) BNSS, 2023-S-193(9)= CrPC, 1973-S-173(8);

(ii) BNSS, 2023-S-175(3)=CrPC, 1973-S-156(3);

                                                                                            Legal Ratios Of Judgents Culled Out As Follows:

(i) The police have the power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, even after filing the charge-sheet, until the trial commences. The Police can conduct further investigation even after the commencement of trial, but such investigation could be carried out only upon the permission of the concerned Magistrate.

(ii) Section 156(3) CrPC allows a Magistrate to order “such investigation”, which includes further investigation under Section 173(8), and is not limited to the pre-cognizance stage.

(iii) The Magistrate can direct further investigation to ensure a fair trial and complete justice, particularly when new facts arise.

(iv) No provision in the CrPC expressly bars the Magistrate from ordering further investigation, and such power must be read into Section 173(8).

(v) The Magistrate’s discretion to order further investigation must be exercised judiciously, depending on the facts of each case and in accordance with the law.

(vi) Substantial justice and uncovering the truth take precedence over concerns about delay, especially when fresh facts that affect culpability or innocence emerge.

                                                                                                          Investigation-Judgments

(i) A fair and just investigation is a fundamental right of the accused- Therefore, the Magistrate can direct the Investigating Officer to take the evidence produced by the accused on record while submitting his report.

(ii) Trial Court has power to direct the police to conduct further investigation as per law settled already by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its earlier judgments.

(iii) The paragraph-42 of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (infra) is the law of the land, which is as follows: “42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173 (8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156 (3) read with Section 156 (1) Section 2(h), and Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C., as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana Vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag V. State of West Bengal and Others (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled.”.

(iv) Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195, the Supreme Court observed in Paragraph-20 as under:- "Thus, the legal position is absolutely clear and also settled by judicial authorities that the court would not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation, which would mean from the time of the lodging of the first information report till the submission of the report by the officer in charge of the police station in court under Section 173 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, this field being exclusively reserved for the Investigating Agency".

The law of the subject has evolved a great deal in the passage of time. Reference and reliance can be placed on the following Judgments, which have been lined up in a descending order:

· Pramod Kumar Shukla Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh- Criminal Appeal No. 3931 Of 2026 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.12908 Of 2025)- Supreme Court Of India Judgment Dated-19.08.2026- Held, “38. …..the issue is not whether an earlier application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC had been preferred or rejected. Rather, the determinative question is whether an order rejecting such an application possesses the character of a final adjudication on the merits so as to attract the doctrine of res judicata. 39. In our considered view, the answer must be in the negative. As already discussed, an order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC is confined to directing, or declining to direct, the exercise of the statutory power of investigation under Chapter XII of the Code. Such an order neither entails an adjudication on the merits of the allegations nor determines any right or liability of the proposed accused. Applying the same principle, the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, being an order rendered at the threshold without any adjudication on the merits after trial, cannot be accorded such finality as would attract the doctrine of res judicata so as to bar the subsequent registration of an FIR or the continuation of criminal proceedings founded upon the same or substantially similar allegations. 43. The consequence is self-evident. The rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police under Section 154 of the Cr.PC. If, notwithstanding such rejection, information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence is subsequently furnished to the Police, the statutory duty recognised in Lalita Kumari (supra) continues to operate with full force.”.

· Paliniswamy Veeraraja Vs. The State Of Karnataka- Criminal Appeal No. ___ Of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) 16149 Of 2024)- Supreme Court Of India Judgment Dated-26.05.2026- Permission from magistrate required for further investigation after filing of closure reports. The power to direct a re-investigation vest only in this Court or the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code or 226 of the Constitution.

· Subash Chander Sharma- J&K&Ladakh High Court Judgment Dated-02.04.2026- Held, further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the court. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has, in clear terms, held that when there is defective investigation, which comes to light during the course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation if circumstances so warrant- Further Held, From the foregoing analysis of legal position as regards the power of the Magistrate/Special Court to direct further investigation in a case where the court is satisfied that the investigation conducted is defective in nature or certain aspects of the matter have not been properly investigated, it is clear that a direction in this regard can be extended even at the post cognizance stage by taking resort to the provisions contained in Section 173 (8) read with Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

· Pramod Kumar Vs. State Of UP- Civil Appeal No……Of 2026 (Arising Out Of SLP (Criminal) No. 350 Of 2024)- Supreme Court Of India Judgment Dated-04.02.2026- (2026) 5 SCC 308= 2026 INSC 120 | 2026 SCO.LR 2(2)[7]- Highlights: FIR—Closure report—No protest petition—Criminal Revision Petition—Further investigation ordered under Section 173(8)—Section 193(3), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—No leave of Court taken—Appeal to the High Court—High Court dismissed—Held, No further investigation without leave of Court- Further Held, the power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

· Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry Vs. The State of Maharashtra- Criminal Application No.573 OF 2019- Bombay High Court Judgment Dated-24.12.2025- This judgment is significant because it balances two competing principles of criminal jurisprudence- the right to a fair investigation and the need to prevent endless reopening of criminal proceedings after commencement of trial. Issue, whether a Magistrate can order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC at the instance of the complainant after framing of charge.- Observed, an application seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable at the instance of the complainant even after framing of charge, though the grant of such relief must depend strictly on the facts and circumstances of each case.

· Suo Moto Vs. Additional Superintendent of Police- Suo Motu Criminal Revision Case No.1480 of 2023- Madras High Court Judgment Dated-07.08.2024- The “final closure report” dated 28.10.2022 filed by the DVAC shall now be treated as a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

· Suo Moto Vs. State Re p. By The Inspector Of Police- Suo Motu Criminal Revision Case No.1481 of 2023- Madras High Court Judgment Dated-23.08.2023- Under Art-227 of the Constitution & S-397/401 CrPC-

· Luckose Zachariah @ Zak Nedumchira Luke Vs. Joseph Joseph- Criminal Appeal No 256 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No 9556 of 2021)- Supreme Court Of India Judgment Dated-18.02.2022- Held, it is necessary for the Magistrate, to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence.

· Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State Of UP- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 4406 of 2021- Allahabad High Court Judgment Dated-09.11.2021- Discussed the issue of further investigation threadbare in the light of the following Supreme Court Of India Judgments:

· Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs State of Gujarat- (2019) 17 SCC 1- 3JB Supreme Court Of India Judgment Dated-16.10.2019- Further investigation U/S-173(8) CrPC- Held, “40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the various judgments as aforeindicated, we would state the following conclusions in regard to the powers of a Magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and section 156(3) of the Code: 40.1 The Magistrate has no power to direct ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’(de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of a police report. 40.2 A Magistrate has the power to direct ‘further investigation’ after filing of a police report in terms of section 173 (6) of the Code. 40.3 The view expressed in sub para 40.2 above is in conformity with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant Singh case by the three-Judge Bench and thus in conformity with the doctrine or precedent. 40.4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific provisions therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction by the Magistrate. The language of Section 173(2) cannot be construed so restrictively as to deprive the Magistrate of such powers particularly in face of the provisions of section 156(3) and the language of section 173(8) itself. In fact, such power would have to be read into the language of section 173(8). 40.5.The Code is a procedural document thus it must receive a construction which would advance the cause of justice and legislative object sought to be achieved. It does not stand to reason that the legislature provide power of further investigation to the police even after filing a report, but intended to curtail the power of the court to the extent that even” where the facts of the case and the ends of justice demand the court can still not direct the investigating agency to conduct investigation which it could do on its own. 40.6. It has been a procedure of propriety that the police has to seek permission of the court to continue ‘further investigation’ and file supplementary charge sheet. This approach has been approved by this Court in a number of judgments. This is such would support the view that we are taking in the present case. Further Held, Magistrate has power to order Further Investigation even in post cognizance stage until trial commences, i.e. until charges have been framed. The Judgments left the following moot questions an-answered: “Whether the extent and scope Of S-156(3) & S-173(8) Cr.P.C enlarged by breaching judicial propriety or it is a progressive mind Judgments matching up with the change of time, looking into the face of the following Judgments- (i) Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy Vs Narayana Reddy-SC3JB- (1976) 3 SCC 252 = AIR 1976 SC 1672- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (ii) Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459 = AIR 1977 SC 2401- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (iii) Suresh Chand Jain Vs State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 628 = AIR 2001 SC 571- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (iv) Mohd. Yousuf Vs Afaq Jahan (v) Dilawar Singh Vs State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641 = AIR 2007 SC 2234- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (vi) Sakiri Vasu Vs State of UP- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (viii) Sreenivas Gundluri Vs SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation (2010) 8 SCC 206- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (ix) Madhao Vs State of Maharashtra (2013) 5 SCC 615- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (x) Anju Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. (2013) 6 SCC 384- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- (xi) Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat-SC3JB- (2015) 6 SCC 439 = AIR 2015 SC 1742- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- In this Casse, Devarapally Lakshminarayana Reddy followed- (xii) Rameshbai Pandurao Hedan v. State of Gujarat (2010) 4 SCC 185- power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Magistrate only at the pre-cognizance stage- Also, Does this Case violates the judicial propriety, Judicial decorum & Judicial precedents, as criticised by justice V. Ramkumar, Former Judge, High Court of Kerala- S-156- S-156(3) & S-173(8) CrPC, 1973.

· Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP- (2008) 2 SCC 409

· Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347).

                                                                                                        Governing Legislation-Bare Act

S-193(9) BNSS, 2023

S-193 BNSS, 2023: Report Of Police Officer On Completion Of Investigation.

(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

(2) The investigation in relation to an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or under sections 4, 6, 8 or section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 shall be completed within two months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.

(3) (i) As soon as the investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward, including through electronic communication to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form as the State Government may, by rules provide, stating-(a) the names of the parties;(b) the nature of the information;(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;(e) whether the accused has been arrested;(f) whether the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond;(g) whether the accused has been forwarded in custody under section 190;(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;(i) the sequence of custody in case of electronic device;(ii) the police officer shall, within a period of ninety days, inform the progress of the investigation by any means including through electronic communication to the informant or the victim;(iii) the officer shall also communicate, in such manner as the State Government may, by rules, provide, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

(4) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 177, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.

(5) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond or bail bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or bail bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.

(6) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 190 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report-(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;(b) the statements recorded under section 180 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

(7) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

(8) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (7), the police officer investigating the case shall also submit such number of copies of the police report along with other documents duly indexed to the Magistrate for supply to the accused as required under section 230:Provided that supply of report and other documents by electronic communication shall be considered as duly served.

(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (3) 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 as the State Government may, by rules, provide; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) 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 (3): Provided 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.

                                                                                                             S-173(8) CrPC, 1973

S-173 CrPC, 1973: Report Of Police Officer On Completion Of Investigation

(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.[(1-A) The investigation in relation to [an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code shall be completed within two months.] [Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 16 (a).] from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station.]

(2) (i)As soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating -(a)the names of the parties;(b)the nature of the information;(c)the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;(d)whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;(e)whether the accused has been arrested;(f)whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;(g)whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.(h)[ Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] [Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 16 (b).] [or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.] [Substituted for the words "or 376D of the Indian Penal Code" by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013] (ii)The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer-in-charge of the police station to make further investigation.

(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.

(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report -(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

(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).

                                                                                                 S-175 BNSS, 2023 Laws And Judgments

S-175 BNSS, 2023: Police Officer's Power To Investigate Cognizable Case. (1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIV: Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.(2)No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.(3)Any Magistrate empowered under section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section (4) of section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned.(4)Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to-(a) receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and(b) after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged.

                                                         S-156(3) CrPC, 1973 Laws And Judgments=S-175 BNSS, 2023 Laws And Judgments

S-156(3) CrPC=S-175BNSS, 2023=Police Officer’s Power To Investigate Cognizable Case-(1)Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of chapter xiii.(2)No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.(3)Any magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 

Kindly CLICK HERE, call our helpline at (+91) 95-99-633-606, or e-mail us at info@hellocounsel.com if you wish to talk to a lawyer or are facing any other Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empaneled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.