The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that magistrates do not have the power to order reinvestigation in criminal matters. “The concept of reinvestigation has not been prescribed in criminal matters by the legislature”, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the high court asserted.
The court made it further clear the magistrate had only three options when a cancellation report was filed by the investigating officer concluding that no offence was committed—accept the report and drop the proceedings; disagree with the report, take cognisance of the offence, and issue process; or direct further investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, now Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
The assertions came as Justice Brar issued detailed guidelines for magistrates dealing with issues such as cancellation reports. The court added that the magistrates must exercise judicial oversight to prevent harassment of individuals and uphold the due process of law.
Justice Brar also cautioned that magistrates not to order further investigation solely based on the complainant’s dissatisfaction. “Ordering further investigation at the ipse dixit of the complainant could prove detrimental to the cause of justice, since he/she is an interested party and may have ulterior motives,” the court observed. It stressed that the complainant must specifically point out the shortcomings in the investigation and the crucial evidence that was overlooked.
Justice Brar ruled any order for further investigation, if deemed fit, was required to be supported by judicial reasoning. Magistrates were required to record their satisfaction based on objective standards, demonstrating that the crucial evidence was overlooked by the investigating agency, key piece of material evidence or document required collection or the investigating officer acted with bias or obstructed the course of justice. The illustrations, the court added, were “enumerative and not exhaustive,” and the magistrates must be guided by objective standards of reason and justice.
Justice Brar also laid down strict guidelines for handling applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC (now Section 175(3) of the BNSS, which allowed magistrates to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate a case.
The court added that Section 175(3) had introduced additional safeguards. Before directing the registration of an FIR, the magistrates must conduct a preliminary inquiry and consider the submissions of the police officer to ensure the decision to invoke investigative machinery was reasoned and well-considered, preventing unnecessary expenditure of public resources.
Justice Brar also ruled that the magistrates must not order the registration of an FIR merely by reiterating the allegations in the complaint. The order must reflect the application of judicial mind and clearly state the rationale for directing an investigation.
In line with a Supreme Court’s judgment, all applications under Section 156(3) were required to be supported by a sworn affidavit. The court added that the magistrates must not act as mere conduits for forwarding complaints to the police.
“The courts are not expected to act as passive transmitters of information, but must carefully examine whether an investigation by the State is genuinely warranted. In that vein, the Magistrate must not act as a mere conduit for forwarding complaints to the police. The courts must shun the antiquated practice of simply passing the buck to the investigating agency in a routine manner. A more dynamic and vibrant approach to advance the cause of reasonableness is called for, thereby enthroning justice as the paramount guiding principle in judicial decision-making,” the court added.
