UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — Can police re-open probe without court approval?

Q1. How many judges constituted the Supreme Court Bench that decided Paliniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka (2026 INSC 561) on the mandatory permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC?

  • A. Two
  • B. Three
  • C. Five
  • D. Seven

Q2. As reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2026, the prior express permission of which authority is mandatory before police can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC after filing a closure report?

  • A. The concerned Magistrate / trial court
  • B. The Director General of Police of the State
  • C. The State Public Prosecutor
  • D. The jurisdictional High Court

Q3. With reference to the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Paliniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka on further investigation, consider the following statements: 1. Section 173(8) CrPC, in its express text, mandates the Magistrate's permission for further investigation. 2. The Court read this requirement into the law relying on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali. 3. The underlying dispute was held to be essentially civil/commercial in nature. 4. The provision corresponding to Section 173(8) CrPC in the BNSS, 2023 is Section 193(9). Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. Section 173(8) CrPC, in its express text, mandates the Magistrate's permission for further investigation.
  2. The Court read this requirement into the law relying on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali.
  3. The underlying dispute was held to be essentially civil/commercial in nature.
  4. The provision corresponding to Section 173(8) CrPC in the BNSS, 2023 is Section 193(9).
  • A. 1, 2 and 3
  • B. 2, 3 and 4
  • C. 1 and 4 only
  • D. 3 and 4 only

Q4. Consider the following judicial precedents: 1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 2. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali 3. Paliniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka 4. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh Which of the above is/are NOT correctly associated with the law on further investigation/quashing under Section 173(8) CrPC?

  1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
  2. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali
  3. Paliniswamy Veeraraja v. State of Karnataka
  4. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh
  • A. 1 only
  • B. 4 only
  • C. 2 and 3
  • D. 1 and 4

Q5. Which one of the following provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the corresponding successor to Section 173(8) CrPC and expressly mandates the trial court's prior permission for further investigation?

  • A. Section 193(9)
  • B. Section 193(3)
  • C. Section 187(3)
  • D. Section 190