Further investigation in murder cases is permissible despite an earlier report where rival versions of the same exist.

A prior complaint or earlier cognizance order did not bar further investigation into a murder case where the later police inquiry proceeded on a different version of the same incident. The Court held that Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code permits further investigation despite an earlier final report, and that rival versions of the same occurrence may both be investigated. The mere filing of a later police report was not impermissible in law, so the High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings and the murder prosecution was required to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the murder prosecution on the ground of double jeopardy and on the basis that a second FIR or further investigation was impermissible.

Analysis: The first complaint lodged by the complainant did not conclude the matter so as to bar investigation into the murder. The later police investigation proceeded on a different version of the same occurrence and culminated in a charge-sheet against the complainant and others for murder. The existence of an earlier final report or an earlier cognizance order in a different proceeding did not prevent further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also held that where rival versions of the same episode exist, investigation may proceed on both versions, and the mere filing of a later police report cannot be treated as impermissible in law.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, and the murder prosecution was required to go to trial.

---