The criminal justice system rests on two fundamental pillars: a fair investigation and an impartial trial. Any deficiency in either process undermines public confidence in justice. The role of the Magistrate in supervising investigations, however, has long been a subject of judicial interpretation. A recurrent question is whether a Magistrate is empowered to order re-investigation of a case once the police have already filed a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)—now largely incorporated in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The recent ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Haryana (CRM-M-46237-2025, decided on 26 August 2025) provides clarity on this issue. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi reiterated that while a Magistrate can direct further investigation, the power to order a fresh or de novo investigation (re-investigation) lies exclusively with higher courts such as the High Court or Supreme Court.
This article explores the issue in depth, analysing the statutory framework, judicial precedents, constitutional implications, and the reasoning adopted in this case.
Statutory Framework
Section 156(1) CrPC (now Section 175, BNSS): Empowers the police to investigate any cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate.
Section 156(3) CrPC: Empowers the Magistrate to direct an investigation at the initial stage before cognizance is taken.
Section 173(2) [now Section 193(3), BNSS]: After investigation, the police must submit a final report (charge sheet or closure report).
Section 173(8) [now Section 193(8), BNSS]: Recognises the possibility of further investigation after filing of the report and submission of a supplementary report.
Notably, no provision explicitly allows a Magistrate to direct re-investigation or to nullify an investigation already conducted.
Distinction Between Further Investigation and Re-Investigation
The courts have consistently drawn a clear line between further investigation and re-investigation:
Further Investigation:
- Supplementary in nature.
- Conducted when new evidence surfaces.
- Continues the earlier investigation.
- Recognized under Section 173(8) CrPC/ Section 193(8) BNSS.
- Magistrate may allow or the police may undertake with intimation to the court.
Re-Investigation / Fresh / De Novo Investigation:
- Wipes out the earlier investigation.
- Conducted afresh as if no prior investigation had occurred.
- Ordered only when the earlier investigation is tainted, unfair, or mala fide.
- Power lies exclusively with constitutional courts (High Courts under Article 226 or Supreme Court under Article 32/136/142).
Judicial Precedents
Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak (2013) 5 SCC 762
This landmark judgment categorised investigations into:
- Initial Investigation,
- Further Investigation,
- Re-investigation.
It held:
- Magistrates can direct further investigation,
- Only higher courts can order re-investigation
K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223
Held that once a report under Section 173(2) is filed, the Magistrate cannot order re-investigation or fresh investigation.
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel (2017) 4 SCC 177
The Supreme Court reiterated that while police may undertake further investigation with court permission, re-investigation can only be ordered by higher courts.
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985) 2 SCC 537
Clarified that upon receiving a police report, the Magistrate can accept it, reject it, or direct further investigation, but cannot set aside the earlier investigation entirely.
Gurmeet Singh Case
Facts
In Gurmeet Singh v. State of Haryana:
- The petitioner had himself lodged an FIR in 2017 alleging fraud of ₹42 lakhs in securing employment for his son.
- The initial charge sheet implicated two accused, while others remained absconding.
- During bail proceedings, the High Court observed that the complainant (petitioner) also appeared complicit and directed the police to examine further.
- The police erroneously sought re-investigation before the SDJM, which was dismissed.
- Later, pursuant to directions of the High Court, an SIT was formed, and a supplementary report was filed nominating the petitioner as an accused.
The petitioner challenged this, arguing that:
The magistrate had no jurisdiction to permit such re-investigation.
Conversion of the complainant into the accused violated Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
No offence under IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act was made out against him.
Court’s Observations
1. Magistrate’s Power Limited to Further Investigation
- The Court reaffirmed that a Magistrate cannot direct re-investigation.
- Only superior courts can order re-investigation in rare cases of unfair or tainted investigation.
- However, Magistrates (and police with court permission) may direct/undertake further investigation to bring on record additional evidence.
2. Re-Investigation v. Further Investigation in Practice
- In this case, the police incorrectly sought “re-investigation.”
- The High Court clarified that what was warranted was “further investigation.”
- The SIT’s supplementary challan was valid as further investigation can be conducted at any stage, even during trial.
3. Article 20(3) and Self-Incrimination
- Protection applies only once a person is formally an “accused.”
- Since Gurmeet Singh was initially only a complainant, evidence given by him could be used even if later arrayed as an accused.
4. Offence Under Prevention of Corruption Act
- Even private persons can be prosecuted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for offering undue advantage.
- The absence of a named public servant does not absolve liability.
Constitutional Dimension
Article 20(3): Protection Against Self-Incrimination
- Safeguards individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves.
- Triggered only after a formal accusation.
- In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), the Supreme Court held that material voluntarily given before one becomes an accused is admissible.
Article 21: Right to Fair Investigation and Trial
- A tainted or biased investigation violates Article 21.
- Hence, higher courts may order re-investigation to uphold fairness.
- Magistrates, however, are confined to further investigation.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the Punjab and Haryana High Court stated:
For the purposes of ‘re-investigation’/‘de novo investigation’ directions for the same must be issued by a superior Court such as the High Court and no such directions can be issued by a Magistrate. As regards ‘further investigation’, it is the domain of the Investigating Agency but it is desirable that prior intimation of the same is given to the Magistrate as the primary report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. already stands submitted.
Conclusion
Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in Gurmeet Singh v. State of Haryana reaffirms a settled principle:
- Magistrates cannot direct re-investigation.
- Their power is confined to allowing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC/ Section 193(8) BNSS.
- Re-investigation or fresh investigation can be ordered only by higher courts, and that too sparingly, to remedy serious lapses in fairness.
This ensures that while justice is not compromised by incomplete or biased probes, the sanctity of criminal procedure and rights of the accused are preserved.
Thus, the answer to the central question—Is a Magistrate empowered to direct re-investigation of a case?—is a clear No. The Magistrate can only order further investigation; re-investigation remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the superior courts.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams