Skip to content
Monday, 9 November 2026 Judgments, law jobs and study notes, written by a practising advocate
Supreme Court

Police Cannot Reopen a Closed Case Without the Magistrate’s Leave: Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. (2026 INSC 120)

By Akinchan Aggarwal, AdvocateB.A. (Hons.) Gold Medalist, LL.B. (University Rank 2), LL.M. (Disputes Resolution), UGC NET · 3 min read

Once a Magistrate has accepted a closure report, can the police reopen the case and investigate again on their own? In Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 INSC 120), the Supreme Court said no. Further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (now Section 193(9) BNSS) needs the leave of the Magistrate or the Court. The power to direct it rests with the court, not with the police or the executive.

Read the judgment (PDF)

Case at a glance

  • Case: Pramod Kumar & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
  • Citation: 2026 INSC 120; 2026 SCO.LR 2(2)[7]
  • Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi (author)
  • Decided: 4 February 2026
  • Under appeal: Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4000 of 2022, order dated 20 November 2023
  • Result: Appeal allowed

Facts

  1. 19 November 2013: FIR No. 70/2013 is registered at Mahila Police Station, Sadar, Firozabad against seven accused under Sections 376D, 352, 504 and 506 IPC. The investigation moves to the Crime Branch, Firozabad, and then to the Crime Branch, Mathura.
  2. 30 May 2014: The investigating officer files a closure report (Final Report No. 17/14) finding no offence made out.
  3. 14 September 2015: The Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad accepts the closure report. The complainant had filed no protest petition despite notice.
  4. 2017: About three years later, the complainant files a criminal revision (Criminal Misc. Case No. 440 of 2017), which remains pending before the Sessions Judge, Firozabad.
  5. 2019: On a National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) order of 6 March 2019, the State Government directs a CBCID investigation (communication dated 6 June 2019).
  6. 22 April 2021: The CBCID officer applies to the Magistrate for permission to investigate further. No order is passed on that application.
  7. 26 April 2021: The Superintendent of Police directs that the investigation go ahead anyway. DNA samples are collected. A DNA report of 21 September 2022 says the accused, including the appellants, were not the biological fathers of the fetus.
  8. 20 November 2023: The Allahabad High Court refuses to quash the 2019 communication and the 2021 SP order. The accused appeal.

The question

After a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC (Section 193(3) BNSS), can the police carry out further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC (Section 193(9) BNSS) without the leave of the Magistrate or the Court?

What the Supreme Court held

  • Leave is read into Section 173(8). The provision does not expressly require leave, but the practice of seeking it must be read into it, following Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) (para 30). A three-judge bench affirmed Vinay Tyagi in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) (para 31).
  • The power belongs to the court. Following Peethambaran, the power to order further investigation rests with the Magistrate or a higher court, not with the investigating agency (para 32).
  • Police must apply; the court must decide. If the agency thinks further investigation is needed, it must apply to the court. The court must apply its judicial mind before deciding. The decision lies solely in the court’s discretion (para 33).
  • A request is not permission. The State’s letters and the IO’s application to the Magistrate did not amount to a court order. No court ever directed further investigation (para 34).
  • The SP exceeded jurisdiction. The SP ordered further investigation without the court’s leave, in defiance of the procedure prescribed by law (para 36).
  • Dharam Pal distinguished. That case was about transferring an investigation to the CBI, not a further investigation started by the police (para 37).

Result

  • The High Court’s order of 20 November 2023 is set aside (para 38).
  • The State’s communication of 6 June 2019 and the SP’s order of 26 April 2021 are quashed (para 38).
  • The complainant’s revision against the closure order is not affected. The Sessions Judge, Firozabad must decide Criminal Misc. Case No. 440 of 2017 on its merits (para 39).
  • The appeal is allowed (para 40).

Why it matters

A closure report accepted by a Magistrate is a judicial order. This judgment makes clear that neither the police nor the State Government can undo it through executive letters or an SP’s direction, even on an NHRC prompt. The route to reopen a closed case lies through the court: a protest petition or revision by the complainant, or an application by the police seeking leave for further investigation. For the defence, it is a strong ground to quash any further investigation conducted without that leave.

Sources

ShareWhatsAppTelegramLinkedInX

More in Supreme Court