Rajasthan High Court has held that while it was true that a court cannot direct the police to conduct an investigation in a particular manner, however the reasons given by a court in its order directing further investigation must not be itself construed as a direction for point-wise investigation. 

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an order by the Magistrate that directed further investigation in the matter filed against the petitioner.

"In the present case, the learned trial Court, while considering the application seeking further investigation, has observed that the investigating agency, while filing the negative final report, had not conducted investigation with regard to the necessary documents, particularly the voters list and the relevant pattas. It was further observed that the material in question had not been sent for FSL examination.

In view of the aforesaid observations regarding the investigation, while dealing with the points raise by the applicant, the learned magistrate found that further investigation was warranted in the mater. The learned magistrate, while allowing the application, has neither directed the investigating agency to adopt any particular mode or manner of investigation nor required the investigating officer to submit the report in any particular form or manner. In such circumstances reasons assigned by the learned magistrate itself cannot be construed as a direction for point-wise investigation".

A case was filed against the petitioner for the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust, in which the police had filed a negative report. The complainant filed an application seeking further investigation which was allowed by the Magistrate.

It was the case of the petitioner that while allowing the application, the Magistrate laid down the particular manner in which the investigation had to be conducted which was not sustainable under law.

It was submitted that while exercising powers to order further investigation, the Court could not direct the investigation agency to conduct the investigation in a particular or point-wise manner, since the mode and manner of investigation lied exclusively within the domain of the investigation agency.

After hearing the contentions, the Court observed,

“…the manner in which such investigation is to be conducted remains within the exclusive domain of the investigating agency. Investigation of a cognizable offence is a statutory function entrusted to the police under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C (now Chapter XIII of BNSS) and the Court cannot ordinarily supervise or dictate the manner in which such investigation is to be carried out… cannot direct the investigating officer to collect a particular piece of evidence, adopt a particular mode of investigation or submit a report in a particular manner.”

The Court held that, at the same time, this principal had to be balanced with another well settled principle that every judicial order had to be reasoned to reflect application of mind.

The Court highlighted, in the present manner, the trial court had observed that the investigating agency did not conduct investigation regarding some necessary documents, particular the voters list and relevant pattas. Further, it was observed that the material in question was not sent for FSL examination.

It was opined that these were the reasons provided by the magistrate while allowing the application for further investigation, without directing any particular mode or manner of investigation to be adopted by the investigation officer.

In this background, the Court held that the reasons assigned by the trial court itself could not be construed as a direction for point-wise investigation.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Title: Rajendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 363

Click Here To Read/Download Order