Courts may order further investigation but cannot direct how evidence is to be collected by police: Raj HC

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that while a court is empowered to order further investigation in a criminal case, it cannot direct the investigating agency to conduct the investigation in a particular manner or prescribe how evidence is to be collected, as the manner of investigation lies within the exclusive domain of the police. The Court recorded that any such directions would amount to unwarranted judicial interference and could undermine the fairness of the trial.

Justice Sandeep Shah recorded that Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, constitute a self-contained code governing investigation, and that the statutory scheme vests discretion regarding the mode and manner of investigation solely with the investigating agency. The Court held that once the court prescribes the manner of investigation, the fate of the case may stand pre-determined, which is impermissible in law.

These observations were made while partly allowing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Mahaveer s/o Indermal Sethiya challenging orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh and the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh, whereby the investigating agency was directed not only to undertake further investigation but also to get the disputed cheques and handwritten note examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and to conduct the investigation in a specified manner.

The case arose from a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, alleging offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. The complaint alleged misappropriation of funds and forgery of cheques and handwritten notes. The complaint was forwarded for investigation, following which the police filed a negative final report stating that the witnesses had not supported the allegations and that no offence was made out.

Aggrieved by the negative final report, the complainant filed a protest petition. The trial court refused to accept the final report and directed further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. While doing so, the trial court also issued directions specifying that the investigating agency should obtain an FSL report regarding the disputed signatures and thereafter submit a complete investigation report. The said directions were affirmed by the revisional court.

The petitioner confined his challenge before the High Court only to the directions issued regarding the manner of conducting the investigation and did not challenge the order directing further investigation. It was contended that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by prescribing the mode of investigation, which amounted to transgressing into the domain of the investigating agency.

After examining the statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in decisions including M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Aman Mittal, State of West Bengal v. Sandip Biswas and Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, the High Court held that although a court may direct further investigation or monitor its progress, it cannot supervise or dictate the manner in which investigation is to be conducted or evidence is to be collected.

The Court held that the trial court and the revisional court were not justified in issuing directions requiring the investigating agency to collect evidence in a particular manner by mandating FSL examination of signatures. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the orders dated August 14, 2025 and April 2, 2025 to the extent they directed the investigating agency to conduct the investigation in a particular manner, while permitting further investigation to continue independently and in accordance with law.

Case Title
Mahaveer S/o Indermal Sethiya vs State of Rajasthan & Another

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7453/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Judgment
February 7, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
For the respondents: Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor; Mr. Rakesh Arora for respondent No.2