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.

You may have missed

Whether in a declaratory suit where ownership over co-parcenary property is claimed,the plaintiff, against his wishes can be subjected to DNA test ?

Whether unregistered family arrangement deed of previous partitioncan be used to prove previous relinquishment of rights by reading it for a collateral purpose?

Whether oral evidence which is contrary to the contents of FIR supersedes over it in MACC (Case)?

Whether minimum wage notified for skilled labour is absolute yardstick to fix income of the deceased in absence of salary certificate?