Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 126
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
Mragendra Singh Bhati And Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State AND ANR. - Respondent
CRLMP / 1395 / 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Nishant Bora for Petitioners, Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with Mr. Ravindra for Respondents
Re-investigation orders require clear reasoning and should be issued only in exceptional circumstances, as emphasized by the court.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 173 - Re-investigation - The court quashed the order directing re-investigation due to lack of reasons provided by the Magistrate, emphasizing that such orders should only be made in rare cases with cogent reasons. (Paras 2.1, 5)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court highlighted that a Judicial Magistrate's order for re-investigation is not standard practice and requires a thorough justification. (Paras 2.1, 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a Magistrate's order that directed re-investigation based on a cryptic order lacking justification, stating it was a dispute primarily of a civil nature between a mother and son. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the Magistrate's order unsustainable due to the absence of reasoning and quashed it, allowing the petitioner to present their case again. (Paras 4, 5)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Magistrate's order for re-investigation was justified and the necessity of providing reasons for such orders. (Paras 2.1, 3)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that re-investigation orders require clear reasoning and should be rare, reinforcing the principle that judicial discretion must be exercised responsibly. (Paras 2.1, 3)
Result: The order dated 25.10.2016 is quashed and set aside.
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. No one has appeared on behalf of the private respondent despite service.
2. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, challenge is made to the order dated 25.10.2016 whereby the learned Magistrate sent back the negative final report submitted by the Police for making re-investigation of the matter.
2.1 A glimpse over the order above manifesting it that it is not only cryptic but passed without assigning any reason so also against the mandate of law and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of the law. An order directing the Agency to make re-investigation of the case can only be passed in rarest of the rare cases and in such situation, it is imperative upon the Court of law to assign the reasons as to what persuaded him to direct making re-investigation of the matter and what are the flaws in investigation conducted on earlier occasion. There are total four lines in the order under assail which reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the complainant is present.
Complainant Smt. Sarojini Kumari is present. Counsel for the complainant submitted a protest petition, be taken on record. The final report along with the case diary and the protest petition, be sent to SHO, Police Station Udaimandir for making re-investigation of the matter. Put up on 20.01.2017 for submitting the result of re-investigation."
These are the reasons. This Court is of the view that a Judicial Magistrate is not supposed to pass an order of making re- investigation of a matter since doing re-investigation is primarily considered alien in the jurisprudence. Wherever, it is felt desirable doing so then cogent reasons are required to be shown.
3. Still for the purpose of satisfaction, I had a cursory look over the negative final report submitted by the Police and a look over it satisfying the Court that it was essentially a dispute between the mother and her son and suggesting a colour of civil nature, but this Court refraining from giving its final opinion on this issue since it would be the domain of the learned Magistrate to decide the same after hearing the complainant on her protest petition. There is force in the instant petition.
4. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed.
5. The order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Officer No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur is hereby quashed and set aside.
6. Nothing would preclude the Judicial Magistrate to hear the complainant on protest petition and then may pass a fresh order as it is recognized under the law and enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Minu Kumari Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2006) 4 SCC 359
7. Stay petition stands disposed of.
