High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Petition to Quash Supplementary Chargesheet Filed During Trial Without Prior Permission Under Section 173(8) CrPC. Supplementary chargesheet filed after commencement of trial without leave of court is impermissible and liable to be discarded.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Accused
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Gaurav Bidre, challenged an order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned PDJ & Sessions Court, North Goa at Merces, Tiswadi, which rejected his application to discard a supplementary chargesheet filed by the police on 03.08.2023. The FIR was registered against the petitioner on 24.06.2022 under Sections 365, 342, 302, and 201 of the IPC. The police filed a chargesheet on 19.09.2022 under Section 173 CrPC, and cognizance was taken on 03.10.2022, after which the trial commenced. During the pendency of the trial, on 03.08.2023, the police filed a supplementary chargesheet bearing No. 71/2023 without seeking prior permission from the trial court. The petitioner filed an application on 27.11.2024 to discard the supplementary chargesheet, which was rejected by the trial court. The High Court held that once trial has commenced, the police cannot file a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC without the leave of the court, as the trial court is in seisin of the matter. The impugned order was set aside, and the supplementary chargesheet was quashed. The court directed that the trial shall proceed on the basis of the original chargesheet.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Supplementary Chargesheet - Section 173(8) CrPC - Filing After Commencement of Trial - The police filed a supplementary chargesheet on 03.08.2023 after the trial had already commenced on 03.10.2022, without seeking prior permission from the trial court. The court held that once trial has commenced, the police cannot file a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) CrPC without the leave of the court, as the trial court is in seisin of the matter. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application to discard the supplementary chargesheet was set aside. (Paras 4-10)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation - Section 173(8) CrPC - Power of Police - The power under Section 173(8) CrPC to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary report is available only until the trial commences. After cognizance is taken and trial begins, the police must obtain prior permission from the court to conduct further investigation and file a supplementary chargesheet. (Paras 8-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a supplementary chargesheet can be filed under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 after the commencement of trial without prior permission of the trial court.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the learned PDJ & Sessions Court, North Goa at Merces, Tiswadi is set aside. The supplementary chargesheet No. 71 of 2023 filed on 03.08.2023 is quashed. The trial shall proceed on the basis of the original chargesheet.

Law Points

  • Section 173(8) CrPC
  • supplementary chargesheet
  • trial pending
  • prior permission
  • police investigation
  • quashing of chargesheet
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 194

Criminal Writ Petition No. 217 of 2026

2026-07-15

Amit S. Jamsandekar, J.

2026:BHC-GOA:1386

Rohan P. Desai, Ashay Priolkar, Arya Parrikar, Esha Ghodekar for Petitioner; Nikhil Vaze, Tarush Pandey, Yajush Pandey for Respondent No.1; L. Raghunandan for Respondent No.2

Gaurav Bidre

State of Goa & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition challenging order rejecting application to discard supplementary chargesheet filed during trial.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 and the supplementary chargesheet No. 71 of 2023.

Filing Reason

Supplementary chargesheet was filed after commencement of trial without prior permission of the trial court.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected the petitioner's application to discard the supplementary chargesheet on 04.04.2025.

Issues

Whether a supplementary chargesheet can be filed under Section 173(8) CrPC after commencement of trial without prior permission of the trial court.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that once trial has commenced, the police cannot file a supplementary chargesheet without leave of the court. Respondents argued that the supplementary chargesheet was validly filed under Section 173(8) CrPC.

Ratio Decidendi

Once trial has commenced, the police cannot file a supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 without prior permission of the trial court, as the court is in seisin of the matter.

Judgment Excerpts

By the present Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.04.2025 (the impugned order) passed by the learned PDJ & Sessions Court, North Goa at Merces, Tiswadi (the Trial Court) and seeks the quashing of the additional chargesheet No. 71 of 2023 filed by the Police on 03.08.2023. The FIR was registered against the Petitioner on 24.06.2022, based on the allegations of the Complainant and Sections 365, 342, 302 and 201 of the IPC were invoked against the Petitioner. During the pendency of the ongoing trial, on 03.08.2023, the Police filed a supplementary chargesheet bearing No. 71/2023.

Procedural History

FIR registered on 24.06.2022; chargesheet filed on 19.09.2022; cognizance taken on 03.10.2022; trial commenced; supplementary chargesheet filed on 03.08.2023; petitioner filed application to discard on 27.11.2024; trial court rejected application on 04.04.2025; present writ petition filed in 2026; decided on 15.07.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 365, 342, 302, 201
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 173, 173(8)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Quashes Arbitral Tribunal Order Imposing Condition on Petitioner to Deposit Amount for Filing Counterclaim. The court held that the Arbitral Tribunal has no power under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to impose such...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Cancellation of Land Allotment to Project Affected Person. Allotment of land in lieu of acquisition cannot be cancelled without affording opportunity of hearing and without valid reasons.