Rajendra Kumar @ Surajmal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2026
Reasons for Further Investigation Cannot Become Point-Wise Police Directions
Judgement Details
Court
High Court of Rajasthan
Date of Decision
3 September 2026
Judges
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The case arose from allegations involving cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.
-
An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC.
-
After investigation, the police submitted a negative final report.
-
The complainant was dissatisfied with the police investigation and applied before the Magistrate seeking further investigation.
-
The Magistrate found that certain relevant material had not been properly investigated, including the voters list and relevant pattas.
-
The Magistrate also noticed that certain material had not been sent for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) examination.
-
Consequently, the Magistrate permitted further investigation.
-
Rajendra Kumar challenged that order before the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that the Magistrate had effectively prescribed the manner in which the investigation should be conducted.
-
The petitioner contended that the manner and method of investigation fall within the domain of the investigating agency and cannot be dictated by a court.
Issues
-
Whether a Magistrate can direct the police to conduct an investigation in a particular manner or on a point-by-point basis?
-
Whether the Magistrate's reasons for ordering further investigation can themselves be treated as directions controlling the manner of investigation?
-
Whether the Magistrate's order permitting further investigation was legally sustainable when the police had previously submitted a negative final report?
-
Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the Magistrate's order?
Judgement
-
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Magistrate's order permitting further investigation.
-
The Court recognised that the investigating agency has primary responsibility for determining the manner and method of investigation. A court ordinarily cannot dictate to the investigating officer which particular evidence must be collected, what investigative method must be adopted, or the precise form in which the investigation report must be submitted.
-
However, the Court distinguished between:
-
directing the manner of investigation, which a court ordinarily cannot do; and
-
recording reasons for considering further investigation necessary, which a court is permitted to do.
-
The Magistrate had merely identified deficiencies in the earlier investigation, including the failure to examine relevant documents and send material for FSL examination. The Magistrate had not actually directed the investigating agency to conduct a point-wise investigation in a prescribed manner.
-
Therefore, the High Court found no illegality or perversity requiring interference under Section 528 BNSS.
Held
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition and held that:
-
The reasons recorded by a Magistrate while ordering further investigation cannot, by themselves, be treated as directions requiring the police to conduct a point-wise investigation.
-
The investigating agency remains responsible for determining the manner and method of investigation, while the court may provide reasons explaining why further investigation is warranted.
-
The Court therefore upheld the Magistrate's order and allowed the further investigation to proceed independently and in accordance with law.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces the principle that investigation is primarily a police function, while judicial authorities supervise the legality of proceedings rather than controlling every investigative step.
-
The case demonstrates that a negative final report does not necessarily end the matter when the competent court finds legitimate deficiencies requiring additional investigation.
-
A Magistrate must provide reasons for ordering further investigation. Such reasons demonstrate application of judicial mind and cannot automatically be interpreted as instructions to the police.
-
The High Court made an important distinction between identifying investigative deficiencies and commanding the investigating officer to collect specific evidence in a particular manner.
-
The police retain discretion regarding the mode, manner and methodology of investigation.
-
The judgment reflects the principle that courts should avoid unnecessarily interfering with the statutory investigative domain of the police.
-
Section 528 BNSS provides the High Court with inherent powers, but those powers should not be exercised merely because a party disagrees with a legally reasoned order for further investigation.
-
The decision is important for criminal proceedings because it prevents accused persons from characterising every observation made by a Magistrate as an impermissible investigative direction.
-
The judgment establishes a practical balance—courts can identify why further investigation is justified, but the investigating agency decides how that investigation should actually be conducted.