[2025:RJ-JP:45573] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6296/2018 1. Murari Lal Kheradi S/o Shri Maliram Kheradi, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 116/1, Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Raj. 2. Pukhraj Jain S/o Shri Rikhab Chand Jain, Aged About 61 Years, R/o 37, Shiv Path, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Raj. (Since deceased) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Rajendra Mehta S/o Shri Babulal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o A-16, Kabir Marg, Sain Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur West, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat, Adv. Dr. Dipendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 13/11/2025 1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.09.2018 passed by Additional Civil Jude and Metropolitan Magistrate No.14 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby after filing negative final report pursuant to FIR No.193/2018, the application filed by the prosecution for returning the file has been allowed with directions to submit report after further investigation. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 20.09.2018 is patently against the provisions of Cr.P.C. and once negative factual report has been [2025:RJ-JP:45573] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6296/2018] filed, without there being any protest petition, the Court cannot direct to return the file to Investigation Officer for the purpose of further investigation. Hence, the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the issue has already been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1962/2010 titled as Dr. Vinay Suren Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., wherein it has been held that as per Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases directions for further investigation can be given. Learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanadha Maharaj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1999) 5 SCC 740 as well as in the case of Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2013) 1 SCC 197; Ram Lal Narang & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1979) 2 SCC 322; Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441, to support his argument that court below has conducted no error whatsoever in returning the file for the purpose of further investigation. 4. Heard and considered, perused the record as well. [2025:RJ-JP:45573] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6296/2018] 5. I find that in recent past the same issue came for consideration before this Court in the case of Dr. Vinay Suren (supra) and after discussing the provisions of Cr.P.C. as well as judgment laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukum Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2011 Supreme (Raj.) 1247, following observations have been made by this Court:- "17. First question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether after filing negative final report and without there being any protest petition by the complainant, on application filed by the investigating officer, the trial court was having power to return the file/negative final report for the purpose of filing charge sheet against the petitioner or not? 18. As per Section 173(3) Cr.P.C., the superior officer of police, pending the orders of the Magistrate, can direct officer-in-charge of the police station to make further investigation and Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. specifies that despite submitting a final report, the investigating agency cannot be precluded from conducting further investigation and in case any further evidence is found, the same can be filed before the Magistrate with the further report. 19. In the case of Mukum Singh & Others (supra), relevant facts were that negative final report was pending consideration before the Magistrate and an application was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police revealing therein that the matter was entrustd to CID(CB) for investigation and, therefore, a request was made to return the negative final report and the Magistrate returned the negative final report. Thereafter, the charge sheet was filed, cognizance was taken and charges were framed against the accused in that case. This Court examined the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. along with Section 210 Cr.P.C. and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra Vs. R. Udhayakumar & Others, (2008) 5 SCC 413 held that even if a negative final report was forward to the Magistrate, there is no bar in Cr.P.C. on further investigation of the [2025:RJ-JP:45573] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6296/2018] matter and since the decision to further investigate the matter was taken by the investigating agency itself, there was no requirement for order of the Magistrate. Para nos. 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the above judgment of Mukum Singh & Others (supra) being relevant are reproduced hereunder: “5. A bare perusal of above provision goes to show that after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, there is no bar on the investigating officer to further investigation the matter. There is no dispute about the above legal proposition, but the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that fresh investigation could not be ordered, but in the present case, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 3.7.2009 has not ordered for any further investigation but on the contrary, Ex. 1 the application which was presented before the Magistrate by Deputy Superintendent of Police on 30.3.2009 goes to show that the CID (CB) was already investigating the matter since 10.8.2007 and hence the trial Magistrate has not ordered any investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Ramchandra vs. R. Udhayakumar and others (2008) 5 SCC 413) wherein it has been held as under:- “Instead of fresh investigation there can be further investigation if required under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The same can be done by CB CID as directed by the High Court. From a plain reading of Section 173 Cr.P.C. it is evident that even after completion of investigation under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8) but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation." 6. It goes to show that under Section 173(8), the police has right to further investigate the matter and further means additional or supplementary. 11. There is no dispute about the above legal proposition but, in the present case, the Magistrate had not ordered for any investigation by the police. As already stated above that the investigation was pending under Section 173(8) and for which investigating officer was competent. 14. By order dated 3.7.2009, the trial court has not ordered for any investigation. It is not in dispute that the matter was pending before the Magistrate under Section 202 and at that stage, application has been presented before the trial court by the investigating officer and then the trial court acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 210, Cr.P.C. Section 210(1), Cr.P.C. Reads as under:- "210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence.- (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (herein referred to as a complaint case); it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial [2025:RJ-JP:45573] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6296/2018] and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation." 15. The above provision goes to show that when a matter is pending before the Magistrate for enquiry and for the same offence, the matter is also pending under investigation, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings. In the present case, when the matter was pending under enquiry before the Magistrate, the investigating officer has submitted application dated 30.3.2009 which is presented before this Court as Annex. 1 and then the Magistrate has rightly stayed the enquiry and waited for the investigating officer to file report and when after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed by the investigating officer, the matter has been committed to the competent court and there seems to be no illegality or perverseness in the above proceedings. 18. Looking at the above, it is clear that the petitioners have not objected at the time of taking cognizance and at the time of framing charge and now on this account only, these objections are liable to be rejected. 19. Hence looking at the above, there is no infirmity in the proceedings pending before the court of Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST) Cases, Pali in Criminal Case No. 4/2010 and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.” 20. Thus, in view of above, it is clear that in the present case also the trial court has committed no mistake in returning the negative final report to the investigating agency and to allow filing of the charge sheet on discovery of new evidence during further investigation. Such process adopted either by the investigating agency or by the trial court is neither erroneous, nor illegal." 6. I do not find any reason to take a different view from the view earlier taken by me in the case of Dr. Vinay Suren (supra), hence, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /8