Rajasthan HC holds Magistrate Must Not Pass Separate Orders on Final Report and Protest Petition

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that a Magistrate becomes functus officio after passing one order, making a second order on the protest petition legally impermissible under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has set aside a Sessions Court order that directed a Magistrate to pass two separate orders — one on a Final Report (Negative) submitted by the police and another on the protest petition filed by the complainant. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, held on 21 April 2026 that such a procedure is “foreign to the procedure contained under Chapter XIV Cr.P.C.” Once a Magistrate passes an order on the Final Report, the court becomes functus officio and cannot pass a second order on the protest petition. The judgment resolves a procedural question that had divided the Magistrate and the Revisional Court, and remits the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge for fresh consideration on the merits.

The Dispute Before the High Court

FIR No. 23/2021 was registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) against the petitioner, Devesh Sharma, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that Sharma developed a physical relationship with her on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.

After investigation, the police submitted Final Report (Negative) bearing FR No. 01/2023, finding no prima facie case against Sharma. The investigating agency noted, among other things, that the prosecutrix had lodged similar FIRs against at least 16 different persons across the country, with five involving identical rape allegations premised on false promises of marriage. In one such matter, the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram had ordered proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. against the prosecutrix, who was found guilty and punished with a fine of Rs. 500 along with simple imprisonment till the rising of the court vide order dated 08.03.2022 in CIS No. 49/2022.

Metropolitan Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan-I issued notice to the prosecutrix upon receipt of the Final Report. She filed a protest petition, and her statements were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. while those of other witnesses were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. By order dated 08.01.2024, the Magistrate accepted the Final Report and rejected the protest petition through a single, common order.

The complainant challenged that order before Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision Petition No. 13/2024. The Revisional Court allowed the revision by order dated 09.12.2024, set aside the Magistrate's order, and remanded the matter for fresh orders. The Revisional Court's reasoning, recorded in paragraphs 35 and 37 of its order, was that the Magistrate was required to pass two separate orders: first on the Final Report, and then on the protest petition after conducting an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

Sharma then filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 61/2025 before the High Court, challenging the Revisional Court's remand order.

The Legal Question

Justice Dhand framed the question precisely: what is the legal procedure and the nature of the judicial order required to be passed by a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure when a Final Report (Negative) is submitted by the Investigating Officer?

The State, through the Public Prosecutor, and counsel for the complainant opposed the petition. They argued that the initial investigation had found a prima facie case against Sharma; that the matter was later transferred to the Special Investigation Unit for Crimes Against Women (SIUCAW), which did not conduct a thorough investigation and neither conducted a potency test nor seized the accused's garments. They pointed to the Forensic Science Laboratory report, which found human semen on the prosecutrix, and to her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as disclosing a cognizable offence. Their position was that the Magistrate erred in accepting the Final Report and that the Revisional Court's remand order was correct.

Senior Advocate Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa, appearing for Sharma, countered that the relationship was consensual and that Section 90 IPC was not attracted. He also pointed out that the accused Ajay Meena, against whom the prosecutrix had lodged FIR No. 69/2021 on 12.02.2021 with similar allegations at Police Station Pachore, Rajgarh, Madhya Pradesh, had been acquitted by judgment dated 06.12.2024. He relied on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Jitendra Kumar Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (Misc. Criminal Case No. 38157/2023, decided 30.11.2023) and on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Sri Viveka P.K. and Others v. The State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 30627.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Dhand set out the full range of options available to a Magistrate upon receipt of a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (now Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Where the police submit a charge sheet indicating an offence, the Magistrate may take cognizance and issue process, disagree and drop proceedings, or direct further investigation. Where the police submit a Final Report (Negative), the same three options remain: accept and drop proceedings, disagree and take cognizance, or direct further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The court drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra, reported in 1967 SCC OnLine SC 107, which confirmed that even where a Magistrate agrees with a Final Report, the Magistrate retains jurisdiction to direct further investigation if the investigation appears unsatisfactory or incomplete, and may ultimately take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) notwithstanding the police's contrary opinion.

Justice Dhand also relied on Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Another, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 537, which held that when a Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance after receiving a report under Section 173(2)(i), the informant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. That obligation, the Supreme Court had said, flows from the informant's recognised interest in the outcome of the FIR lodged by them.

Applying these principles, Justice Dhand held that the correct procedure is as follows. When a Final Report (Negative) is placed before the Magistrate, notice must be issued to the complainant. If the complainant appears but does not file a protest petition, the Magistrate hears both sides and either accepts or rejects the Final Report. If a protest petition is filed and evidence is led, the Magistrate considers the Final Report together with the protest petition and the evidence of witnesses, and then exercises one of three options: accept the Final Report, reject it and take cognizance, or send the matter for further investigation.

The critical holding is that this entire exercise culminates in a single, common order. The court stated that at this stage, two different orders are not supposed to be passed. If one order is passed on the Final Report, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and cannot then pass a second order on the protest petition. The Revisional Court's direction that two separate orders were required was therefore, in the High Court's view, contrary to the procedure prescribed under Chapter XIV Cr.P.C.

The Revisional Court had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jamuna Singh and Others v. Bhadai Shah, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1541, to set aside the Magistrate's order. Justice Dhand did not disturb the Revisional Court's power to remand, but held that the specific reasoning in paragraphs 35 and 37 of the impugned order — that two separate orders were required — was legally unsustainable. The Magistrate's approach of passing a common order was, in fact, the correct one.

Outcome

Justice Dhand quashed and set aside the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Revision Petition No. 13/2024, to the extent of the observations in paragraphs 35 and 37 directing the Magistrate to pass two separate orders.

The matter was remitted to the Revisional Court for passing fresh orders on the merits after hearing arguments from both sides. The parties were directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 11.05.2026. The Revisional Court was directed to decide the revision petition expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the High Court's order.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications were also disposed of.