The court cannot direct the investigating agency on how to conduct investigations, as this undermines the autonomy of the police and the principles of fair trial.

Judgment :

Sandeep Shah, J.

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 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 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 c