Rajasthan HC: Magistrate's Order for Further Investigation Valid When Reasons Are Given, Not Point-Wise Directions

Jodhpur bench dismisses a quashing petition, holding that a reasoned magistrate order directing further investigation does not amount to dictating the mode of investigation to police.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a petition seeking to quash a magistrate's order directing further investigation in a cheating and forgery case. Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu, sitting singly, held on 24 July 2026 that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, had passed a reasoned, speaking order and had not directed the investigating agency to adopt any particular mode or manner of investigation. The petitioner had argued that the impugned order amounted to prescribing point-wise investigation, which courts are not permitted to do. The bench found that distinction crucial: a magistrate may decline to accept a negative final report and direct further investigation, but the manner of that investigation belongs exclusively to the police. Where no such prescriptive direction is given, the order stands.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Rajendra Kumar @ Surajmal, a resident of Gorva Bera, Sojat City, District Pali, filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3378/2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). He sought to quash an order dated 19 March 2026 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat, in Case No. 291/2025.

The underlying matter arose from FIR No. 381/2023 registered at Police Station Sojat City, District Pali, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After completing investigation, the investigating agency filed a negative final report. The complainant, Jeevaram, then filed an application seeking further investigation. The magistrate allowed that application by order dated 19 March 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order on the ground that, while directing further investigation, the magistrate had prescribed the manner in which the investigation was to be undertaken, effectively issuing point-wise directions to the police — something courts are settled to have no power to do.

The Legal Issue

The core question was whether the magistrate's order, in substance, crossed the line from a lawful direction to conduct further investigation into an impermissible prescription of the mode and manner of that investigation.

Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 193(9) of BNSS) empowers a magistrate to direct further investigation after a final report is filed. The law is settled that investigation of a cognizable offence is a statutory function entrusted to the police under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. (now Chapter XIII of BNSS). A court cannot ordinarily supervise or dictate the manner in which investigation is to be carried out, direct the investigating officer to collect a particular piece of evidence, adopt a particular mode of investigation, or require a report to be submitted in a particular form.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on three judgments — Smt. Prabhat Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CRLMP No. 1298/2017), Bhawar Lal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CRLMP No. 10598/2025), and Mahaveer v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CRLMP No. 7453/2025) — all of which affirmed the prohibition on point-wise investigation directions. The Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, submitting that the magistrate had merely directed further investigation with reasons and had not prescribed any particular method.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Sandhu accepted the legal principle urged by the petitioner as uncontroverted. The bench held that the law on the magistrate's powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C./Section 193(9) BNSS is “no longer res integra.” The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M.C. Abraham & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 649, which categorically held that investigation is a field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, and a magistrate cannot direct the agency to submit a report in accordance with his own views. The bench further noted State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal & Anr., (2019) 19 SCC 740 and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532 to the same effect.

However, Justice Sandhu held that this principle had to be read alongside an equally settled one: every judicial order must disclose due application of mind and must be supported by reasons. The bench drew on the Supreme Court's summarisation of the duty to give reasons in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, where the Court held that reasons are “virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making” and that “reason is the soul of justice.” The bench also cited Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, which dealt with the requirement of a magistrate applying mind under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 519, which described reason as “the heartbeat of every conclusion.” The same principle was reiterated in Ramkrishna Forgings Limited v. Ravindra Loonkar, (2024) 2 SCC 122.

Applying these twin principles to the facts, the bench examined the actual contents of the impugned order. The magistrate had observed that the investigating agency, while filing the negative final report, had not conducted investigation with regard to necessary documents — particularly the voters list and the relevant pattas. The magistrate also noted that the material in question had not been sent for FSL examination. On the basis of these specific observations about gaps in the investigation, the magistrate directed further investigation.

The bench found that in doing so, the magistrate had neither directed the investigating agency to adopt any particular mode or manner of investigation, nor required the investigating officer to submit a report in any particular form. The reasons assigned in the order reflected genuine application of mind to why further investigation was warranted — not a prescription of how it was to be conducted.

Justice Sandhu therefore held that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, while correctly stating the law, did not assist him on these facts. Those decisions prohibit point-wise directions as to method; they do not invalidate a reasoned order that simply identifies the gaps in an investigation and directs that further investigation be conducted.

Outcome

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order of 19 March 2026 warranting interference under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed.

The bench directed that the investigating agency shall conduct further investigation independently and submit the result in accordance with law. Any pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.