In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 :

1955 Cri LJ 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 1150] this Court contemplated the possibility of further investigation even after a court had taken cognizance of the case. While noticing that a police report resulting from an investigation was provided in Section 190 CrPC as the material on which cognizance was taken, it was pointed out that it could not be maintained that a valid and legal police report was the foundation of the jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance. It was held that where cognizance of the case had, in fact, been taken and the case had proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation did not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice had been caused thereby. It was said that a defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, had no direct bearing on the competence of the procedure relating to cognizance or trial.

Like this:

Related

You may have missed

At U/S 227 CrPC stage, the Judge has merely to sift evidence to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding (SC-16/11/1978)

Restitutionary jurisdiction is inherent in every court, to neutralise the advantage of litigation (SC-23/03/2023)

Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way, other methods are necessarily forbidden (SC-23/03/2023)

Demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act (SC- 23/03/2023)