Further investigation after a police report is permissible, but the court cannot choose the rank of investigating officer.

A court receiving a police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may accept it, disagree with it and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), or direct further investigation under Section 173(8) where the ends of justice require additional inquiry. That power is not displaced merely because a final report has already been filed. However, the court cannot direct that further investigation be conducted by a particular police officer or by an officer of a specified rank, because selection of the investigating officer remains with the investigating agency. The result was that the direction for further investigation stood, but the rank-specific limitation was impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on receipt of a police report closing the case, the Special Judge could direct further investigation. (ii) Whether the Special Judge could specify that the further investigation be conducted by an officer of a particular rank.

Issue (i): Whether, on receipt of a police report closing the case, the Special Judge could direct further investigation.

Analysis: On receipt of a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court may accept the report, disagree with it and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), or direct further investigation under Section 173(8). The power of further investigation is available where the court considers that the ends of justice require additional inquiry, and revisional interference with such an order is not warranted merely because the police had already filed a final report.

Conclusion: The Special Judge had the power to order further investigation, and the High Court was not justified in setting aside that direction.

Issue (ii): Whether the Special Judge could specify that the further investigation be conducted by an officer of a particular rank.

Analysis: The power to order further investigation does not include authority to dictate which particular police officer, or what rank of officer, must conduct it. That choice lies with the investigating agency, and the court may not usurp that function while exercising power under Section 173(8).

Conclusion: The direction fixing the rank of the investigating officer was impermissible and had to be deleted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court order was set aside, and the Special Judge's direction for further investigation was restored with the restriction that no particular officer or rank could be mandated.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may direct further investigation after a police report under Section 173(2), but it cannot specify the particular officer or rank to conduct that investigation.

---