The High Court of Punjab and Haryana clarified that an executive order directing further investigation after a police cancellation report is ultra vires, reinforcing the magistrate’s exclusive jurisdiction to sanction any post-report inquiry.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tarun Trikha, filed a writ petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 331 dated 02.06.2024, registered under Section 32 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 and Sections 120-B and 420 of the IPC. The FIR alleged that the petitioner, together with several agents, operated an alleged MLM/cryptocurrency scheme named Upnomix and Oris Coin, inducing the complainant (respondent No. 2) to invest Rs 10 lakhs.
Key Facts
- 02.06.2024: FIR No. 331 lodged at Police Station Industrial Sector-29, Panipat.
- 17.12.2024: Police prepared a cancellation report concluding no incriminating material against the petitioner.
- 20.12.2024: Cancellation report submitted before the learned ACJM, Panipat.
- 04.02.2025: ADGP, Crime, Haryana issued a communication directing further investigation.
- 11.02.2025: Managing Officer/SHO, Sector-29, Panipat applied to the ACJM for return of the original case file.
- 20.02.2025: ACJM, Panipat ordered the return of the file to the concerned police quarter.
- (Petition filing date not specified): Petition under Section 528 BNSS filed seeking quashing of the FIR, the ADGP’s communication, and any further proceedings.
Procedural History
- 02.06.2024: FIR registered.
- 17.12.2024: Cancellation report prepared by investigating agency.
- 20.12.2024: Cancellation report filed before ACJM, Panipat.
- 04.02.2025: ADGP, Crime, Haryana directed further investigation (executive order).
- 11.02.2025: Police application for original file before ACJM.
- 20.02.2025: ACJM ordered return of file, facilitating further investigation.
- (Date of petition filing not mentioned): Writ petition under Section 528 BNSS filed.
- 20.08.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 26.08.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
- Petitioner: Argues FIR is vague, cancellation report shows no case, ADGP’s direction lacks jurisdiction, and further investigation requires magistrate’s permission per Supreme Court precedents.
- Respondent State: Contends FIR contains specific allegations, cancellation report is not final, investigation may continue, and the magistrate’s role is not indispensable.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 331, the ADGP’s communication dated 04.02.2025, and any subsequent coercive action, and requests the matter be restored to the stage where the cancellation report dated 17.12.2024 is considered by the magistrate.
The Legal Issue
What is the correct procedure for ordering further investigation after a police cancellation report under Section 173(8) CrPC and Section 193(9) BNSS, and does an executive direction by the ADGP, without magistrate approval, have any legal force?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Pramod Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2026 INSC 120, asserting that post-cancellation investigation must be sanctioned by the magistrate. He highlighted that the cancellation report was filed before the ACJM on 20.12.2024 and that the ADGP’s communication dated 04.02.2025 bypassed the statutory requirement of obtaining judicial permission. The petitioner also cited Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI and Tularam v. Kishore Singh to demonstrate that a magistrate may accept, reject, or order further inquiry, but cannot be sidestepped by an executive order.
For the Respondent
The State argued that the FIR contains specific allegations against the petitioner, rendering the complaint more than nominal. It maintained that the cancellation report does not automatically terminate proceedings and that the investigating agency may continue inquiry under its statutory powers. The State further submitted that the ACJM’s order of 20.02.2025 merely facilitated the return of the file and did not constitute a judicial direction for further investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reviewing the statutory framework governing post-investigation procedures. Under Section 173(2) CrPC, a police report may be accepted, rejected, or lead to cognizance by the magistrate. The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar clarified that Section 173(8) CrPC (mirrored by Section 193(9) BNSS) requires the police to obtain prior leave of the magistrate before conducting any further investigation after a final report.
"The power to direct further investigation rests with the Magistrate/Court concerned and not with the investigating agency."
The Court noted that the cancellation report dated 17.12.2024 was submitted to the ACJM on 20.12.2024, thereby placing the matter within the exclusive domain of the magistrate. No application seeking the magistrate’s permission was filed before the ADGP’s communication on 04.02.2025. Consequently, the ADGP’s direction was an executive act lacking jurisdiction.
The Court distinguished the State’s contention that the cancellation report does not terminate the case. While agreeing that the report alone does not end proceedings, it emphasized that the magistrate must first consider the report before any further step. The ACJM’s order of 20.02.2025, which merely returned the file, was held to have facilitated the unlawful continuation of investigation and therefore could not stand.
The Court also examined earlier precedents such as Hemant Dhasmana, Tularam, Mukhtar Zaidi, and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari, which collectively outline three options for a magistrate upon receipt of a final report: accept, reject, or order further inquiry. The present case failed to follow any of these routes, rendering the subsequent executive actions ultra vires.
In light of the statutory scheme and Supreme Court pronouncements, the Court concluded that the ADGP’s communication and the ACJM’s facilitating order must be set aside. The matter must be restored to the stage where the magistrate can exercise judicial discretion over the cancellation report.
The Verdict
The petition is partly allowed. The communication dated 04.02.2025 issued by the ADGP, Crime, Haryana, directing further investigation is set aside. The order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Panipat, is set aside to the extent it facilitated further investigation. The ACJM is directed to consider the cancellation report dated 17.12.2024 within one month and to proceed in accordance with law. The prayer for quashing the FIR remains open for consideration after the magistrate’s order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Executive Directions Cannot Supersede Magistrate Authority
- Police must file an application under Section 193(9) BNSS before seeking magistrate’s permission for any post-cancellation inquiry.
- Any executive order issued without such permission is void and can be challenged under Section 528 BNSS.
Cancellation Report Does Not End Criminal Proceedings Automatically
- The filing of a cancellation report merely places the matter before the magistrate; the magistrate may still accept, reject, or order further investigation.
- Practitioners should advise clients that the existence of a cancellation report does not guarantee termination of the case.
Procedural Compliance Is Mandatory
- Ensure that the magistrate’s order is obtained before any further investigative steps.
- If the magistrate declines the report, the police must still seek fresh judicial approval before proceeding.
Practical Takeaways
- File a Section 193(9) BNSS application promptly after a cancellation report.
- Monitor the magistrate’s response; do not rely on police communications.
- Use Section 528 BNSS to quash unlawful continuations of investigation.
