Back
2023 Supreme(Raj) 1726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
Dinesh Soni and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Another – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1799 of 2023
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Vishal Sharma.
For the Respondent: N.S. Bhati.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(8) - Petition for quashing the order directing a specific investigation - The trial Court is empowered to order further investigation; however, it cannot direct the method of investigation. The Magistrate must not exceed the limitations placed by legislative intent on the Investigating Officer's discretion. (Paras 2-5)
(B) Judicial Review - The order’s essential portion directing a particular mode of investigation is unsustainable as it undermines the Investigating Officer’s prerogative. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an order by the Metropolitan Magistrate directing an Investigating Officer to investigate on specific points in a case related to a FIR. The petitioners argued that the Magistrate overstepped their powers under the relevant section.
Findings of Court:
The Court affirmed the Magistrate's power to re-investigate but found the directive to investigate in a specific manner unsustainable.
Issues: Whether a Magistrate can direct an Investigating Officer on the methods of investigation during a further investigation order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while a Magistrate can order further investigation, they cannot dictate how the investigation should be carried out.
Result: Petition partly allowed; directive set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed against a magistrate's order. (Para 1) |
| 2. dispute over the authority of the magistrate. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on the investigation authority. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. order partially allowed, directing independent investigation. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
1. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in FR No. 19/2022 arising out of FIR No. 54/2021, Police Station Khanda Falsa, District Jodhpur, by which the learned Judge has issued direction to the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter in a particular manner while exercising power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has directed the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter on nine points mentioned in the order and to submit its report. Counsel submits that this approach of the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the powers of learned Magistrate under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. because while passing the order for further investigation, the Magistrate is not empowered to direct the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter in a particular way, therefore, the order dated 21.03.2023 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashing of the impugned order and contended that as per Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. there is power left with the trial Court to send the case back for re-investigation, so also, if any particular query is to be made, it is within his domain to pass such an order u/Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C. for re-investigation of the matter, if police has filed final negative report.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.
5. 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 reinvestigation, if he is not satisfied with the investigation. According to provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. the 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.
6. In view of above, the present misc. petition is partly allowed and the order dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan so far as directing Investigation Officer to investigate on certain points, in a particular manner, is set aside. It is directed that the investigation shall be conducted independently by the SHO, Police Station Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur.
7. Stay petition is also disposed of.
