Only Superior Courts Can Direct Re-Investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court

September 16, 2025

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that only superior courts such as the High Court or the Supreme Court have the authority to order a re-investigation in a criminal matter. Magistrates, the court observed, do not have the jurisdiction to issue such directions.

Bench’s Observations

Justice J.S. Bedi, while hearing a case involving a Sirsa resident, explained that “re-investigation” means a de novo investigation, which virtually nullifies and replaces the original investigation already conducted. This authority rests solely with the higher judiciary.

In contrast, the Court distinguished this from “further investigation”, which remains within the domain of the investigating agency. However, the agency must ideally inform the magistrate before conducting further inquiry since a challan (charge-sheet) would already have been filed.

The Court explained that further investigation usually arises when:

Additional evidence is discovered against the existing accused, or
New individuals are identified as accused to face trial alongside those already charge-sheeted.

Case Background

The ruling came in response to a petition by a Sirsa resident. The individual had initially filed a complaint in a criminal case but was later named as an accused by the police. He challenged the filing of the challan against him, arguing that the police conducted a re-investigation without directions from a superior court, which they were not empowered to do.

On Multiple Challans

The Court also addressed the issue of multiple challans being filed in a single case. Justice Bedi clarified that:

Only a superior court can direct the exclusion of any challan for the purpose of framing charges.
Otherwise, it is for the trial court to examine all the challans filed and decide whether to frame charges or discharge the accused.

Article 20(3) and Self-Incrimination

The petitioner also argued that material he supplied during the investigation of his original complaint should not be used against him, as this would amount to self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

The High Court rejected this claim, holding that:

The protection under Article 20(3) applies only when a person is formally arrayed as an accused.
Any evidence provided during an investigation before formal accusation can legally be used against that person.
The formal status of an accused is attained only once a supplementary challan or charge-sheet is submitted against him.

Applicability of Prevention of Corruption Act

The petitioner also questioned the invocation of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) on the grounds that no public servant was involved in the case. The High Court dismissed this contention as well, ruling that:

Offences under the PC Act can be committed by a public servant, a private person, or by both acting together.
The absence of a public servant does not exempt private individuals from being prosecuted under the Act.

Conclusion

The judgment provides critical clarity on the scope of powers between magistrates, investigating agencies, and superior courts regarding re-investigation and further investigation. It also reinforces the principle that protections under Article 20(3) apply only after formal accusation and highlights the broader applicability of the PC Act, even to private individuals.

The ruling will serve as a precedent in cases where the distinction between further investigation and re-investigation becomes contested, ensuring a clear demarcation of judicial and investigative powers.