The J&K&L HC, while dealing with a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ruled that a Trial Court cannot order re-investigation within the four corners of Section 173 of CrPC, and that the power to order re-investigation lies only with the constitutional courts.
In the case before the Court, in an FIR registered against the Petitioners under Sections 5(1) (d) r/w 5(2) J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, 120-B Ranbir Penal Code, the Vigilance Organization, Jammu filed a closure report before the Trial Court (Special Judge Anti-corruption, Doda). However, the Trial Court declined to accept the said report, and ordered re-investigation. Thereafter, the Vigilance Organization, Jammu filed yet another closure report, which again came to be rejected by the Trial Court, and further investigation was ordered. It was the orders directing re-investigation and further investigation as well as the FIR that came under challenge before the High Court.
The argument of the Petitioners before the High Court broadly was that the order of re-investigation as well as the order of further investigation is illegal, unfair and without jurisdiction, and that the Magistrate has no power to direct fresh/de-novo/reinvestigation after the filing of the closure report.
The High Court, upon consideration of the matter, formulated three questions, viz.,
“i. Whether the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Doda was within its jurisdictional power to direct re-investigation of the case in light of the closure report submitted by the investigating agency?
ii. Whether the trial court can order for further investigation of the case in light of second Closure report submitted by the investigating agency when the main allegations alleged in the complaint have not been investigated at all by the Investigating Agency?
iii. Whether the High Court can order re-investigation/de-novo/fresh or further investigation in a peculiar case while exercising powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure?”
The Court, while emphasizing upon the distinction between “re-investigation” and “further investigation” ruled, “the investigating agency as well as the Trial Court has the power to conduct “further investigation” in terms of Section 173 (8) of the Code, which is in contradistinction to fresh/reinvestigation. The power to order reinvestigation or fresh investigation falls exclusively in the domain of higher courts, that too in exceptional cases.”
It, therefore, held the order of re-investigation passed by the Trial Court as beyond jurisdiction.
Further, with regards the order of “further investigation” ordered by the Trial Court upon filing of subsequent closure report, the Court ruled that although the Magistrate has the power to order for “further investigation” under section 173(8) of CrPC, however, it requires to be exercised at the very threshold, when the closure report is being submitted to the Magistrate by the investigating agency under section 173(2) of the Code. Moreover, observing that the order of “further investigation” in the instant case cascaded from the earlier order of re-investigation, it held the same to be without any legal sanctity and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Court, however, while observing that the language used in Section 173(8) of the Code does not constrain the powers of the High Court to order a fresh investigation or re-investigation under Section 482 of the Code, if it determines such action essential for achieving fair and impartial justice, disposed-off the Petition with a direction upon the investigating agency to conduct a fresh investigation within a period of two months from the date of the judgment.
