IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4526 of 2026 RAMKUMAR DANGI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Anjali Gyanani - GA for the respondents/State.

ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, in UNCR No. 124/2019, whereby the closure report submitted in FIR bearing crime No.286/11 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Datia, for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was rejected and direction was issued for “re-investigation by a DSP rank officer”.

As per the prosecution case, FIR No.286/11 was registered in respect of an incident alleged to have occurred on 14.08.2011 near Anamay Ashram, Bundela Colony, Datia. After investigation, the police submitted a closure report (Kharji Prativedan) on 25.02.2012 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, stating that no offence was made out against the present petitioners. After a considerable lapse of time, the learned CJM, vide order dated 10.10.2025, rejected the closure report and directed re-investigation by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), along with obtaining medical and arms expert opinion. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a criminal revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, which was dismissed on 03.11.2025 on the ground that the order directing further investigation was not a final order and hence revision was not maintainable. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police had conducted a detailed investigation and filed a closure report exonerating the petitioners. The learned CJM erred in directing “re-investigation”, which is not permissible in law once a report under Section 173(2) CrPC has been filed. The order suffers from illegality and results in grave prejudice to the petitioners. The Magistrate may order “further investigation” but not “re- investigation”, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation if the earlier investigation appears incomplete. The impugned order was passed to ensure a fair and complete investigation. However, it is fairly conceded that in law, the Magistrate cannot order “re-investigation” or “fresh investigation”, and at best can direct “further investigation”.

After hearing both parties and perusing the record, this Court is of the view that it is settled law that after submission of a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC, the Magistrate has the power to accept the closure report and drop the proceedings, disagree with the report and take cognizance, or direct further investigation. However, the Magistrate does not have the power to order “re-investigation” or “fresh investigation”, as such power ordinarily vests with superior courts. In the present case, the learned CJM has used the expression “re-investigation by a DSP rank officer”. The use of the term “re- investigation” is not legally correct. However, from a reading of the entire order, it appears that the intention of the learned Magistrate was to ensure a proper and complete investigation. Therefore, instead of setting aside the entire order, this Court finds it appropriate to modify the impugned order to the limited extent of correcting the terminology.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with direction that the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, in UNCR No.124/2019, is modified to the extent that “re-investigation by a DSP rank officer” s