Magistrate Can Direct Further Investigation U/S 173(8) CrPC After Taking Cognisance Where Investigation Is Defective: J&K And Ladakh High Court

The Court was hearing a petition challenging orders passed by the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) Jammu, including an order directing the investigating agency to address deficiencies in the investigation and subsequent orders framing charges against the petitioner in a corruption and forgery case.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar observed: “… as regards the power of the Magistrate/Special Court to direct further investigation in a case where the court is satisfied that the investigation conducted is defective in nature or certain aspects of the matter have not been properly investigated, it is clear that a direction in this regard can be extended even at the post cognizance stage by taking resort to the provisions contained in Section 173 (8) read with Section 156(3) of the CrPC.”

Senior Advocate P.N. Raina appeared for the petitioner, while AAG Raman Sharma appeared for the respondents.

Background

The case arose from an FIR registered alleging manipulation of revenue records to confer undue benefit upon a beneficiary through the insertion and alteration of khasra entries. The petitioner, who was posted as Naib Tehsildar and custodian of the record room at the relevant time, was alleged to have conspired with other accused in facilitating such tampering.

Upon filing of the chargesheet, the trial court took cognisance and proceeded to consider the question of framing charges. At that stage, the court observed that the investigation had not adequately examined whether the petitioner was personally in custody of the records or whether the responsibility lay with subordinate officials.

In view of these deficiencies, the trial court deferred the question of framing charges and directed the investigating agency to address the lapses. Pursuant thereto, additional statements were recorded, and a report was submitted, based on which charges were later framed against the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged these orders, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to direct further investigation after cognisance and that the subsequent material could not be relied upon.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first examined the nature of the order passed by the trial court and held that, notwithstanding the absence of express terminology, the direction issued was in substance one for further investigation. It observed that the trial court had merely sought to cure deficiencies relating to the identification of the actual custodian of the records and the role played in the alleged conspiracy.

Rejecting the contention that the trial court had acted with bias, the Court noted that the order demonstrated a dispassionate evaluation of the material and a conscious decision not to proceed with framing of charges in the absence of adequate investigation.

While analysing the legal position, the Court relied upon the decision in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) and reiterated that “further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognisance has been taken by the court.” It further noted that a defective investigation coming to light during trial can be cured by further investigation where circumstances so warrant.

The Court also referred to Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2004) and emphasised that “the mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice.”

Placing reliance on Vinu Bhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019), the Court underscored that the Magistrate’s power to ensure a fair and proper investigation continues at all stages before commencement of trial and is rooted in the requirement of fairness under Article 21.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the trial court was well within its jurisdiction to direct further investigation even at the stage of framing of charges, particularly where material deficiencies in investigation had been identified.

However, on the facts of the case, the Court found that the investigating agency had failed to conduct a proper and comprehensive investigation despite such directions. It noted that crucial aspects, including the timing of alleged tampering and verification of the defence put forth by the petitioner, had not been adequately examined.

The Court further observed that the investigating agency had not complied with the requirement of submitting a proper supplementary report in the prescribed form, as mandated under Section 173(2) CrPC.

Conclusion

The High Court upheld the order directing further investigation, holding that it was in accordance with law and within the jurisdiction of the trial court.

However, finding that the subsequent investigation was incomplete and inadequate, the Court quashed the order framing charges and the charge memo against the petitioner. It directed the investigating agency to conduct further investigation in accordance with the law and submit a proper report before the trial court.

The matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh at the stage of framing of charges after completion of such an investigation.

Cause Title: Subash Chander Sharma v. SHO Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau Jammu & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:954)

Appearances

Petitioner: Senior Advocate P.N. Raina; Advocate J.A. Hamal

Respondents: AAG Raman Sharma; Advocate Saliqa Sheikh

Click here to read/download Judgment