Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.R. MENGDEY, J.
Chander Udharam Chachlani & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. - Respondents
R/Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 4247 of 2025 With R/Special Criminal Application No. 9565 of 2024 With R/Special Criminal Application No. 9567 of 2024 With R/Special Criminal Application No. 4249 of 2025
Decided On : 06-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.B. Naik, Learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Ekant G. Ahuja, Mr. J.M. Panchal, Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Pruthviraj Y. Gohil, Learned Advocate, Mr. S.R. Kheskani, Learned Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.K. Patel, APP, Ms. Kruti Shah with Mr. Jay N. Shah.

A prospective accused lacks the locus standi to challenge an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the investigative process is a police function, and no legal right exists for the non-accused to intervene or demand a hearing at this stage.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 173(8) - Further investigation - Power of magistrate - Locus standi of prospective accused - A person who has not yet been arraigned as an accused in a criminal proceeding lacks the locus standi to challenge an order for further investigation, as they possess no right to intervene in or influence the method and manner of investigation conducted by the state agency. (Paras 13, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Fundamental Rights - Rights against harassment - Investigation versus prosecution - Conducting further investigation does not amount to double jeopardy or a violation of protection against discriminatory treatment; it is a continuation of the investigative process essential for ascertaining the truth, and not equivalent to prosecution or punishment. (Para 20)

(C) Scope of Judicial Intervention - Duty of Court - In cases where previous reports appear unsatisfactory, the court is obligated to direct further investigation in the interest of justice to ensure the truth is discovered, as a court of law cannot remain a silent spectator to faulty investigative procedures. (Para 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of trial court orders that permitted further investigation into criminal proceedings related to land disputes. The petitioners contended that previous reports had not implicated them and that repeated summons by the investigating agency constituted harassment and violated their fundamental rights. The state and the complainant maintained that the petitioners were necessary subjects of the inquiry to reach the logical conclusion of the case.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that since the petitioners were not yet named as accused, they had no legal standing to challenge the procedural orders of the trial court. It further observed that the authority to investigate is a fundamental function of the state police, and judicial intervention at the investigative stage should be minimal to prevent hindering the discovery of truth. The court held that allegations of delay or inconvenience could not override the necessity of a thorough investigation.

Issues: The central issues were whether a party not yet arraigned as an accused could legally challenge an order for further investigation, and whether such investigative actions improperly infringed upon the constitutional protection against harassment and mental trauma.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory power of the police to conduct further investigation remains uninhibited until the culmination of the process, and an accused or a prospective accused has no right to demand an opportunity of being heard before the authorization of such investigative measures.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and context of challenges to investigation orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. opposing contentions on the validity and necessity of further investigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. locus standi of non-accused parties in challenging further investigation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. court's power under section 173(8) crpc to order further investigation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
5. constitutional challenges regarding article 21 and impact of trial delay. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. dismissal of applications and regulation of interim protection. (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

1. By filing the Special Criminal Application No.4247 of 2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs: -

“A. To quash and set aside the order dated 24.02.2025 passed below Exhibit 143 in Criminal Case No.3008/2005 by the learned 5th Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat and proceedings consequential thereto.

B. Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this application to stay the order dated 24.02.2025 passed below Exhibit 143 in Criminal Case No.3008/2005 by the learned 5th Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat and proceedings consequential thereto.

C. To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. By filing the Special Criminal Application No.4249 of 2025 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs: -

“A. To allow the present petition.

B. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 24/2/2025 passed below Exhibit-143 in Criminal Case No.3008 of 2005 by the Learned 5th Chief Judicial Magistrate Surat as the order being illegal, null, and void, having been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation as well as all the consequential proceedings instituted thereafter.

C. That the Hon'ble Court be please to stay the implementation of the order dated 24/2/2025 passed below Exhibit-143 in Criminal Case No.3008 of 2005 by the Learned 5th Chief Judicial Magistrate, during the pendency and final hearing of the present petition.

D. Direct the initiation of appropriate proceedings against Respondent No.2 for filing a false affidavit and misleading the Court.

E. Grant any other relief(s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. By filing the Special Criminal Application No.9565 of 2024 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs: -

“A. To allow the present petition.

B. To issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the notices issued in General Application No.501/2024 (Annexure A) and all proceedings pursuant thereto undertaken or pending before the Respondent No.2 herein i.e. the Detective Police Inspector, C.I.D. Crime, Gandhinagar.

C. That in view of the serious apprehensions shown by the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners be permitted to take assistance of an advocate who will sit at a visible distance from the petitioner no. 1 and his employees as and when called for inquiry and investigation purpose to prevent the abuse of process of law.

D. That the petitioners also humbly pray that as the property in question and parties are from Surat City thus the inquiry of General Application No. 501/2024 being investigated by CID Crime Gandhinagar be transferred to CID Crime Surat which is headed by the Commissioner of Police Surat City and the inquiry and investigation be supervised by the Commissioner of Police Surat City

E. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to provide all the details pertaining to General Application No. 501/2024 and also to provide copy of the General Application No.501/2024, along with annexures.

F. Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of the present petition,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document