Merely Mentioning Wrong Sub-Section In Chargesheet Doesn't Render Entire Investigation Illegal: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that merely mentioning a wrong sub-section in the charge-sheet will not render an entire investigation a nullity/illegal. While deciding the effect of such trivial error on the criminal proceedings, Justice Savitri Ratho held –

“In view of Section 193(9) of the BNSS, merely because a wrong sub section has been mentioned in the charge sheet i.e. Subsection 193(8) instead of Section 193(9), it will not render the investigation illegal or non-est.”

Case Background

An FIR was registered against the petitioner for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 313 and 34 of the IPC for meting out cruelty upon the victim and also causing miscarriage without her consent. A preliminary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner by the police for commission of the aforesaid offences with a prayer to the Court to keep further investigation open.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that if the proceedings are not stayed until the submission of the final charge-sheet, he shall be prejudiced. The counsel also highlighted that the police have asked for keeping further investigation open under Section 193(8) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He, however, submitted that Section 193(8) does not authorize the Court to permit further investigation.

The State vehemently opposed the plea for stay on further proceedings till the submission of final charge-sheet. It argued that even though it is unlikely but in case any material is found to be favourable for the petitioner, he can utilise the same at the appropriate stage, i.e. trial.

Court's Observations

It was acknowledged that the police have found prima facie materials against the petitioner. Also, the permission for conducting further investigation has been granted in order to find out joint marriage photograph and to examine the relevant witnesses. Therefore, the Court discarded the contention of the petitioner that the police are likely to find materials in support of his innocence.

“So the submission of the petitioner that the police may find materials in support of the innocence of the petitioner is fantastic and liable for rejection. On the other hand, the materials which may be found during investigation will only strengthen the case of the prosecution against the petitioner,” it said.

Justice Ratho then proceeded to peruse Section 193 of the BNSS. She clarified that though the police have sought permission for further investigation under Section 193(8) instead of the correct provision i.e. Section 193(9) of the BNSS but that per se does not render the entire investigation a nullity which would justify quashing of the entire pending criminal proceedings.

It was also noted that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences on the basis of the preliminary charge-sheet and committed the case to the Court of Session. It relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 58 which held that once the Court takes cognizance of the offence, it is immaterial whether the further investigation is pending or whether it is for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of charge-sheet; it would neither vitiate the charge-sheet nor would it entitle the accused to default bail.

Accordingly, the Court neither deemed it fit to quash the proceedings nor to put a stay on the same until the submission of final charge-sheet.

Case Title: Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLMC No. 1056 of 2025

Date of Judgment: May 15, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Jayakrishna Mahapatra, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 77

Click Here To Read/Download Order