Dineshkumar Gokuldas Kalantry v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026

The case arose from a private complaint filed by the respondent alleging offences arising out of commercial/business transactions between the complainant’s firm and the accused’s firm.

The matter was initially investigated by the Vakola Police Station, which treated the dispute primarily as a civil matter and submitted an investigative report accordingly.

A High Court order set aside that initial report, resulting in a second investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The EOW also submitted an ‘A’ summary report.

Despite the EOW’s summary report, the Magistrate rejected it and framed charges against the accused.

After framing of charge, the complainant applied under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation, which was allowed by the trial court on 14 December 2018.

The accused (applicant) filed a criminal application before the Bombay High Court challenging the Magistrate’s order permitting further investigation after framing of charges.

The Bombay High Court allowed the criminal application filed by the accused challenging the Magistrate’s order.

The High Court held that while an application under Section 173(8) CrPC may be maintainable even after framing of charge, the power to allow further investigation cannot be exercised routinely or mechanically.

The Court emphasized that further investigation should be permitted only when there are strong, cogent, and justifiable reasons showing serious lapses or infirmities in the earlier investigations.

The High Court observed that the Magistrate’s order lacked proper application of mind and was based on general judicial observations rather than concrete facts demonstrating unfair or inadequate investigation.

The Court held that the investigations conducted twice (first by local police and then by EOW) did not give rise to a situation where further investigation was justified.

Therefore, the High Court quashed and set aside the trial court’s order dated 14 December 2018 permitting further investigation, and dismissed the complainant’s application under Section 173(8).

The Court reaffirmed that Section 173(8) CrPC is designed to permit additional investigation only on valid and serious grounds and not as a matter of routine once charges are framed.

By emphasizing the need for strong justification, the Court protected the accused’s right against unending or endless investigation, which could prejudice the defence and prolong uncertainty.

The judgment distinguished between mere maintainability of an application under Section 173(8) and the discretionary exercise of allowing such an application, stressing the latter requires demonstrable facts pointing to investigative defects.

The Court’s reasoning balances the objectives of fair administration of justice with the finality of trial proceedings, preventing misuse of Section 173(8) to delay or derail proceedings.

This ruling clarifies that trial courts should exercise caution and apply judicial mind when dealing with requests for further investigation after charges are framed.