BENGALURU: The power to command re-investigation or de novo investigation or transfer of investigation to any other agency is the exclusive prerogative of the constitutional courts (high courts and Supreme Court) exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or it is an inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Karnataka High Court said.
The court also said that the proceedings in terms of Section 531(2)(a), which arise prior to July 1, 2024, would be governed only by CrPC and not BNSS, and the proceedings must be taken forward by the concerned court only in terms of CrPC.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order while partly allowing the petition filed by Thara Peethambaram and her son, Dr Krishnarjun Peethambaram, questioning the order dated March 24, 2025, passed by the Magistrate court to conduct re/further investigation in a criminal case registered by the Rajagopala Nagar police on a private complaint filed by P Hari Shankar.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court committed a procedural illegality by referring the matter for re-investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC, while incorporating Section 174 of the BNSS the court appears to have got itself confused as to what should be followed, BNSS or CrPC. The order directing re-investigation can only be the power of the constitutional courts and not the Magistrate, he argued.
The high court said that the act of the Magistrate, which directs re-investigation or further investigation, is, on the face of it, illegal, as there was no report under Section 173(2) filed before him to order further investigation, as obtained under Section 173(8), of the CrPC. In that light, the order of the Magistrate directing ‘re’ or ‘further’ investigation is illegal, said the high court, remitting the case of the petitioners to the Magistrate court to pass necessary orders strictly in consonance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order.