[Cites 44, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahaveer vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5107]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7453/2025
Mahaveer S/o Indermal Sethiya, aged About 38 Years, resident
of 38 Chetna Bhawan, Pannadhay Colony, Chittorgarh Dist.
Chittorgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ajayraj Singh S/o Late Sh. Hukam Singh Chundawat,
Resident of Bassi, presently Kukada Residency,
Chittorgarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Rakesh Arora for respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 27.01.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 27.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 07.02.2026
Reportable
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 14.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, in Criminal Revision No.77/2025,
whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against
the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chittorgarh in FR No.192/24 dated 11.12.2024 arising
out of FIR No.357/2024, Police Station Kotwali, District Chittorgarh
for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-
B IPC, directing the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter
in a particular manner, was rejected. The challenge has also been
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (2 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
laid to the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, as stated supra.
2. The prayer made by the petitioner in the petition is as
follows:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this petition
may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated
14.08.25 passed by add. session judge no.2 chittorgarh in
criminal revision petition no.77/2025; & the order dated
02.04.25 passed by learned chief judicial magistrate
chittorgarh in negative final report (fr) no.357/2024
whereby learned magistrate ordered/suggested the mode
of investigation & directed investigating agency to
investigate the matter in a particular manner, as well as
the criminal proceedings initiated in furtherance of the
same, May kindly order to be quashed.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem in
favor of the petitioner may also be granted"
Factual Matrix :
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.
2- Ajayraj Singh filed a complaint under Section 175(3) of the
BNSS, 2023 alleging commission of offences under Sections 406,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC against the petitioner
and his father Indermal. In the complaint, the complainant stated
as under:-
"the accused person (Petitioner - Mahaveer Sethiya),
under the pretext of making him a shareholder in Urban
Cooperative Bank Limited in 2015, opened an Overdraft (OD)
account for him and his mother, from this, he
misappropriated Rs.8,00,000/- by transferring the amount to
their various firms. Furthermore, the complainant joined as
an accountant with the accused to handle accounts. The
accused took possession of several signed and blank
cheques, as well as chequebooks from his IDBI Bank, HDFC
Bank, Canara Bank, and Urban Cooperative Bank accounts.
Accused obtained his signatures on cheques, which he kept in
his possession. The accused then allegedly conspired to
misuse these cheques. On 26.10.2020, the complainant came
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (3 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
to know about the fact that the accused forged the
complainant's signature on two cheques and a handwritten
note (dated July 24, 2019.) to withdraw funds (Rs. 5,17,500)
from the person named Narayan Chawla and invested that
money into their own business. The complainant had to pay
Rs.5,17,500/- to a person named Anup Ameria to recover
these forged documents, which included IDBI Bank cheque
No. 089705, Canara Bank cheque No. 728983, and a
handwritten note dated July 24, 2019. In June 2024, the
complainant discovered that another IDBI Bank cheque (No.
232423) had also been forged and handed over to Shailendra
Singh Chundawat. The complainant requested that these
documents be sent for FSL and FIR be registered with
offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 of
IPC."
4. The complaint so filed was sent for investigation under
Section 175(3) BNSS, 2023 by the learned trial Court. The police,
after investigation, filed a negative final report No.192/24 dated
11.12.2024 while asserting therein that although the complainant
had referred to handing over of two cheques and a handwritten
note by the petitioner to Narayan Chawla, Anup Ameria and
Shailendra Singh Chundawat, but all the witnesses have denied
the same and rather expressed their inability to acknowledge any
such documents ever having been handed over to them or
returned by them to the complainant after receiving any amount.
The police also found that the petitioner and the complainant were
very close to each other and almost part of the same family.
5. Aggrieved by filing of the final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C., the respondent filed a protest petition, emphasizing that
the police had not undertaken the proper and necessary
investigation. It was also asserted that, prior to conclusion of the
investigation, the complainant had submitted an application before
the Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, seeking
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (4 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
verification of the signatures of petitioner appearing on the cheque
by way of FSL. Upon the protest petition so filed, the trial Court
refused to accept the final report submitted by the Investigating
Agency and directed the Investigating Agency to undertake further
investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
6. Strangely, while passing such an order, the Court also
specified the manner in which the investigation was to be
conducted, viz., by obtaining an FSL report with respect to the
signatures on the cheques and the handwritten note, and
thereafter submitting a complete investigation report before the
Court concerned.
7. Being aggrieved by such directions, the petitioner filed a
revision petition, being Criminal Revision Petition No. 77/24,
before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh,
who while concurring with the view taken by the learned trial
Court, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 14.08.2025
and held that there was no illegality in issuing such directions by
the learned trial Court.
8. Both the above-mentioned orders are under challenge in the
present petition.
Argument on behalf of petitioner:
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
while arguing the case on merits, asserted that though the entire
case of the prosecution hinged upon the statements of Narayan
Chawla, Anup Ameria, Shailendra Singh Chundawat and Hamender
Singh, but none of the witnesses have supported the version given
by the complainant. Learned counsel further asserted that the
cheques were issued by the complainant himself and there was no
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (5 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
occasion for the petitioner to endorse the signatures of the
complainant upon the cheques in question. Learned counsel
further submitted that, as far as the version given by the
complainant that he received the cheques and a written note from
Shailendra Singh Chundawat and Anup Ameria after handing over
a certain amount to them, the said version is not supported by
any of the witnesses. Therefore, the Investigating Agency, after
considering all aspects of the case, had rightly filed the negative
final report while emphasizing that no offence was made out.
Learned counsel further asserted that since there was no
allegation of misuse of the cheques or their being used as security,
there was no occasion for the Investigating Agency to get the
signatures matched by way of an FSL report. He further asserted
that when the witnesses had not supported the version of the
prosecution, there was no requirement of delving into the niceties
of the signatures upon the cheques in question, which admittedly
were handed over by the complainant himself to the Investigating
Agency and were never recovered from the petitioner.
10. Apart from the above-mentioned submissions, learned
counsel emphatically submitted that, even otherwise, assuming
that the case was fit for directing further investigation, the trial
Court could not have directed the investigation to be conducted in
a particular manner, as has been done in the present case.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction to get the
signatures upon the cheque and the written note examined
through the FSL, and further direction to conduct the investigation
in a particular manner as well as to submit the report thereafter
before the trial Court, was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (6 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
Court. Learned counsel further asserted that the above-mentioned
order amounted to transgressing into the domain of the
Investigating Agency with regard to undertaking the investigation.
He thus submitted that the order passed was beyond jurisdiction
of the Court below, and the learned Revisional Court has also not
considered this aspect of the matter while affirming the order
passed by learned trial Court.
11. After arguing the matter at some length the learned counsel
for the petitioner, however, confined his relief only to the
directions given by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the
learned Revisional Court, with regard to the manner of conducting
the investigation, and has not challenged the order directing
further investigation as issued by the learned trial Court and
affirmed by the learned Revisional Court.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in
support of his arguments, various case laws were cited before the
learned Revisional Court, but the learned Revisional Court, rather
than considering the citations as relied upon by the petitioner,
treated them as citations on behalf of the respondents. He further
submitted that, even if, such precedential law had been properly
considered by the Revisional Court, the order in question would
not have been passed. To buttress his submissions, learned
counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of "State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal & Anr.",
reported in (2019) 19 SSC 740, M.C. Abraham and Anr. v.
State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 649
and the judgment dated 18.04.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (7 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
1799/2023 (Dinesh Soni & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan &
Anr.).
Argument on behalf of respondents:
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has
supported the impugned orders to the extent of directions for
further investigation; however, he was not in a position to
countenance the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
with regard to the directions issued for conducting the
investigation in a particular manner.
14. Learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Arora for the
respondent/complainant, on the other hand, while asserting that
the investigation was laconic, submitted that the learned trial
Court had rightly refused to accept the final report and directed
further investigation. He submitted that, despite a request having
been made for getting the signatures matched through the FSL,
the Investigating Agency had not done the needful, and therefore
the trial Court was within its jurisdiction to direct the manner in
which the investigation was to be conducted. He, therefore,
prayed that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be dismissed.
Question for consideration
15. The only issue for consideration in the present case is
"whether the Court can issue directions to the investigating
agency to conduct an investigation in a particular manner."
16. Since the petitioner has not challenged the order with regard
to the undertaking of further investigation and has confined his
relief only to the extent of the observations made in the second-
last paragraph of the impugned order with regard to the manner
in which the investigation was to be conducted, the merits of the
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (8 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
case, to the extent of consideration of the direction for further
investigation, have not been gone into. However, for the sake of
convenience, the operative portion of the impugned order dated
02.04.2025 is quoted as under:
" इस प्रकार उक्त प्रकरण में अनुसंधान अधिकारी द्वारा अपू र्ण अनुसंधान
किया जाना प्रकट होता है और परिवादी की ओर से उक्त परिवाद पत्र के साथ
प्रस्तुत विवादित चैक व हस्तलिपि पर परिवादी के हस्ताक्षरों के संबंध में
एफ.एस.एल. जां च करवाकर उक्त प्रकरण में अतिरिक्त अनुसंधान करवाया
जाना उचित प्रतीत होता है । अतः परिवादी की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार
किया जाकर थानाधिकारी कोतवाली, चित्तौड़गढ़ को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि
परिवादी की ओर से प्रस्तुत विवादित चैक व हस्तलिपि पर विवादित हस्ताक्षरों के
संबंध में एफ.एस.एल. जां च करवाकर प्रकरण में अतिरिक्त अनुसंधान कर
नतीजा न्यायालय के समक्ष पेश करे । एफ.आर. पत्रावली नियमानुसार लौटायी
जावे। "
17. Needless to emphasize that the above-mentioned order was
affirmed by the learned Revisional Court also on the same
analysis.
Analysis:
18. The question for consideration before this Court is whether
the Court can direct investigation of an offence in a particular
manner? for the above-mentioned purpose, reference to Chapter
XII of the Cr.P.C., 1973 would be relevant. The Chapter starts with
Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., which provides as under:
"154. Information in cognizable cases.--
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a
cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a
police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such
information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as
aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the
substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by
such officer in such form as the State Government may
prescribe in this behalf:
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (9 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
[Provided that if the information is given by the woman
against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B,
section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section
354D, section 376, 2[section 376A, section 376AB, section
376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section
376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted,
then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police
officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that--
(a) in the event that the person against whom an
offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section
354C, section 354D, section 376, [section 376A, section
376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section
376DA, section 376DB], section 376E or section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been
committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently
mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be
recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person
seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such
person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special
educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be video
graphed;
(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the
person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of
sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.]
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section
(1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an
officer in charge of a police station to record the information
referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such
information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of
Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be
made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner
provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the
powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation
to that offence."
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (10 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
19. Furthermore, Sections 156 and 157 of the Cr.P.C. provide as
under:
"156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable
case.--(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may,
without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable
case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area
within the limits of such station would have power to inquire
into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall
at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case
was one which such officer was not empowered under this
section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may
order such an investigation as above-mentioned.
157. Procedure for investigation.--
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in
charge of a police station has reason to suspect the
commission of an offence which he is empowered under
section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of
the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of
such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person,
or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below
such rank as the State Government may, by general or special
order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to
investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if
necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of
the offender:
Provided that--
(a) when information as to the commission of any such
offence is given against any person by name and the case is
not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station
need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to
make an investigation on the spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that
there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation,
he shall not investigate the case.
[Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape, the
recording of statement of the victim shall be conducted at the
residence of the victim or in the place of her choice and as far
as practicable by a woman police officer in the presence of her
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 08:31:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (11 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
parents or guardian or near relatives or social worker of the
locality.]
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of
the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the
police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully
complying with the requirements of that sub- section, and, in
the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the
officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in
such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government,
the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be
investigated."
20. A perusal of the above-mentioned sections and further
provisions of Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. will reveal that the manner
in which the investigation is to be conducted lies within the
exclusive domain of the Investigating Agency, and the Chapter in
question is a self-contained code as far as the manner of
investigation is concerned, be it the manner in which the
statements are to be taken, the confessions are to be recorded,
medical examinations are to be conducted, or the issuance of
search warrants, etc.
21. It is only upon completion of the investigation that the report
is sent by the officer in charge of the police station to the
Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence under
Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Quoting Section 173(8) would also be
relevant here, which provides as under:
"173. Report of police officer on completion of
investigation
.........
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude
further investigation in respect of an offence after a report
under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate
and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of
the police station obtains further evidence, oral or
documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further
report or reports regarding such evidence in the form
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (12 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6)
shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or
reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded
under sub-section (2)"
22. A perusal of the above-mentioned provision will reveal that
even post completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency is
not precluded from further investigating in respect of an offence,
and it can obtain further evidence, oral as well as documentary,
and thereafter forward the report to the Magistrate regarding such
evidence in the form prescribed. It is thus clear that the above-
mentioned provisions set out the details of the manner in which
the investigation is to be conducted, and a perusal of the
provisions as well as Chapter XII will reveal that the manner of
investigation lies within the exclusive domain of the Investigating
Agency, and the Court concerned has no say as far as the manner
in which the investigation is to be conducted.
23. The issue for consideration as to whether the High Court,
while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of
the Cr.P.C.), can interfere in the manner of investigation, came up
for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of M.C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 649, held as
under:
"13. This Court held in the case of J.A.C. Saldanha
[(1980) 1 SCC 554: 1980 SCC (Cri) 272] that there is a
clear-cut and well-demarcated sphere of activity in the field of
crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an
offence is the field exclusively reserved by the
executive through the police department, the
superintendence over which vests in the State
Government. It is the bounden duty of the executive to
investigate, if an offence is alleged, and bring the offender to
book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (13 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of
proving the offence. Once that is completed and the
investigating officer submits report to the court requesting the
court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, its duty comes to an end. On
cognizance of the offence being taken by the court, the police
function of investigation comes to an end subject to the
provision contained in Section 173(8), then commences the
adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an
offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person
or persons charged with the crime. In the circumstances, the
judgment and order of the High Court was set aside by this
Court.
....
17. The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is for the
investigating agency to submit a report to the Magistrate after
full and complete investigation. The investigating agency may
submit a report finding the allegations substantiated. It is also
open to the investigating agency to submit a report finding no
material to support the allegations made in the first
information report. It is open to the Magistrate concerned to
accept the report or to order further enquiry. But what is clear
is that the Magistrate cannot direct the investigating agency
to submit a report that is in accord with his views. Even in a
case where a report is submitted by the investigating agency
finding that no case is made out for prosecution, it is open to
the Magistrate to dis-agree with the report and to take
cognizance, but what he cannot do is to direct the
investigating agency to submit a report to the effect that the
allegations have been supported by the material collected
during the course of investigation.
18. In the instant case the investigation is in progress. It is
not necessary for us to comment on the tentative view of the
investigating agency. It is the statutory duty of the
investigating agency to fully investigate the matter and then
submit a report to the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate
will thereafter proceed to pass appropriate order in
accordance with law. It was not appropriate for the High Court
in these circumstances to issue a direction that the case
should not only be investigated, but a charge sheet must be
submitted. In our view the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction in making this direction which deserves to be set
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (14 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
aside. While it is open to the High Court, in appropriate cases,
to give directions for prompt investigation etc., the High Court
cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a report that
is in accord with its views as that would amount to
unwarranted interference with the investigation of the case by
inhibiting the exercise of statutory power by the investigating
agency. "
24. The above-mentioned judgment was thereafter considered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Mittal (supra) and
while following the same, identical observations were made.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West
Bengal v. Sandip Biswas, reported in Manu/SC/1697/2022
has further held as under:
"5. The High Court even Under Articles 226 and 482 of the
Constitution of India does not have the power to direct the
investigation to be conducted in a particular manner. As to
Whether bail is to be granted is solely within the discretion of
the High Court. However, directing the investigating agency to
conclude the investigation by a particular date and after that
date directing automatic release of the Appellant, in our view
would be to abdicate the function of the High Court to decide the
question as to whether the applicant before it was entitled to
grant of bail on merits or not."
26. Even a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
Dinesh Soni v. State of Rajasthan (supra), has held that the
Court cannot direct the Investigating Agency to investigate in a
particular manner even while exercising powers under Section
173(8) of the Cr.P.C., as the same is within the discretion and
prerogative of the Investigating Officer. The Court has held as
under:
"From a bare perusal of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., it is
clear that the Magistrate has power to send the case back for
re-investigation, if he is not satisfied with the investigation.
According to provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (15 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
Magistrate is not precluded to pass an order for further
investigation and Investigating Officer is also under obligation
to follow the directions issued by the Magistrate and to take
further evidence oral or documentary to send further report
as per the directions of the Court. However, the Investigating
Officer has his discretion and prerogative to investigate the
matter as per his subjective satisfaction and the method to
be adopted to investigate the matter is totally left with the
discretion of the Investigation Officer. In the present case,
the order with regard to further investigation is in consonance
with the provisions of law but the operative portion of the
impugned order directing the Investigating Officer in a
particular way is not sustainable."
27. The issue in this regard was also considered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal
Secretary & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532. In the above-
mentioned case, the Court distinguished between monitoring of
investigation and supervising of investigation, holding that the
Court can monitor the investigation but cannot supervise the
investigation by directing execution of a task in a particular
manner or undertaking surveillance qua the same. It was held as
under:
"38. The monitoring of investigations/inquiries by the Court is
intended to ensure that proper progress takes place without
directing or Channelling the mode or manner of investigation.
The whole idea is to retain public confidence in the impartial
inquiry/investigation into the alleged crime; that
inquiry/investigation into every accusation is made on a
reasonable basis irrespective of the position and status of that
person and the inquiry/investigation is taken to the logical
conclusion in accordance with law. The monitoring by the
Court aims to lend credence to the inquiry/investigation being
conducted by CBI as premier investigating agency and to
eliminate any impression of bias, lack of fairness and
objectivity therein.
39. However, the investigation/inquiry monitored by the court
does not mean that the court supervises such
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (16 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
investigation/inquiry. To supervise would mean to observe and
direct the execution of a task whereas to monitor would only
mean to maintain surveillance. The concern and interest of the
court in such "Court-directed" or "Court-monitored" cases is
that there is no undue delay in the investigation, and the
investigation is conducted in a free and fair manner with no
external interference. In such a process, the people
acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case would
also have a sense of security and they would cooperate with
the investigation given that the superior courts are seized of
the matter. We find that in some cases, the expression "Court-
monitored" has been interchangeably used with "Court-
supervised investigation". Once the court supervises an
Investigation, there is hardly anything left in the trial. Under
the Code, the investigating officer is only to form an opinion
and it is for the court to ultimately try the case based on the
opinion formed by the investigating officer and see whether
any offence has been made out. If a superior court supervises
the investigation and thus facilitates the formulation of such
opinion in the form of a report under Section 173 (2) of the
Code, it will be difficult if not impossible for the trial court to
not be influenced or bound by such opinion. Then trial
becomes a farce. Therefore, supervision of investigation by
any court is a contradiction in terms. The Code does not
envisage such a procedure, and it cannot either. In the rare
and compelling circumstances referred to above, the superior
courts may monitor an investigation to ensure that the
investigating agency conducts the investigation in a free, fair
and time-bound manner without any external interference."
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.
Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari
& Anr., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488, while relying upon the
judgment passed in M.C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.(supra), reiterated that the Court cannot
direct the Investigating Agency to investigate the case in
accordance with its own view, as such directions amount to
unwarranted interference. If such an order is passed, it would
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (17 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
amount to overstepping judicial limits. The Hon'ble Apex Court
heard as under:
"31. The High Court, without recording any reason
whatsoever, directed the police that it is obligatory on their
part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of
property and filing of charge sheet. It is difficult to discern as
to how such directions resulting in far reaching consequences
could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court
interfered with the investigation of crime which is within the
exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police
to investigate the case from a particular angle and take
certain steps which the police depending upon the evidence
collected and host of other circumstances may or may not
have attempted to take any such steps in its discretion."
29. A perusal of the judgments referred to (supra), as well as
the provisions of the Code of 1973 and corresponding provisions
under the B.N.S.S., 2023, clearly reveals that the manner in which
investigation is to be conducted lies within the exclusive domain of
the Investigating Agency, and the Court cannot interfere with the
same, particularly with regard to the manner of investigation. True
it is that, post-investigation, when the report is submitted, the
Court is within its domain to accept or reject the final report and
to proceed accordingly. However, it cannot direct that further
investigation to be conducted in a particular manner.
30. The power to investigate into the commission of a cognizable
offence is a statutory power of the Investigating Agency which
cannot be interfered with by the Court. The Court may direct
prompt investigation or order further investigation, but it cannot
transgress into the field of the Investigating Agency by prescribing
the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted. Once
the Court directs the manner of investigation and suggests
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5107] (18 of 18) [CRLMP-7453/2025]
collection of evidence in a particular way, it can safely be said that
the fate of the case is sealed by the Court itself, thereby
undermining the process of conducting a fair trial.
31. The question is thus answered in the manner that, though
the Court can direct holding of further investigation, it cannot
direct the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted or
the manner in which evidence is to be collected during
investigation, as the field in question lies within the exclusive
domain of the Investigating Agency.
Conclusion
32. In view of the above discussion, the present criminal
miscellaneous petition is partly allowed. The order dated
14.08.2025 passed in criminal revision petition No. 77/2025 by
the learned Add. Session Judge No.2, Chittorgarh is set aside and
the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in FR no.192/24 dated
11.12.2024 arising out FIR No.357/2024, Police Station Kotwali,
District Chittorgarh by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Chittorgarh is also set aside to the extent of directing the
Investigating Officer to investigate the matter in a particular
manner i.e. the direction qua getting the signatures on cheques
and hand note to be examined by the F.S.L. It is, however,
directed that the further investigation shall be conducted by the
Investigating Agency independently and in accordance with law.
33. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
66-mohit/-
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:13:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
