A mechanical refusal of further investigation cannot stand when material eyewitnesses and serious allegations remain unexamined.

The petitioner challenged the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai’s order dated 8 March 2024 rejecting his application under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation in G.R. Case No. 827 of 2023, arising from Marishda P.S. Case No. 66 of 2023

He alleged that, following a fatal road accident involving his car, he was assaulted, property and documents were taken, and he was coerced into signing a blank stamp paper.

He further alleged that the police omitted serious offences, dropped a named accused, and failed to record statements of witnesses identified in his complaint

The State opposed the application, submitting that the investigation was fair and that any omissions could be addressed during trial.

1. Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing the petitioner’s application for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC

2. Whether the High Court should intervene in revision and direct further investigation in light of the alleged omissions in the investigation

Section 173(8) CrPC provides for further investigation.

The court stated that further investigation is an essential means of ascertaining the truth, but a Magistrate should not order re-investigation or a fishing inquiry merely because a complainant is dissatisfied with the charge-sheet.

Conversely, the court must guard against a perfunctory or biased investigation resulting in a miscarriage of justice

The petitioner invoked Sections 483 and 482 CrPC in seeking revisional and inherent intervention

The court considered the allegations of missing documents, cash and jewellery, and coercion to sign a blank stamp paper against the background of tensions following the road accident

It found that the investigating officer had omitted serious allegations, dropped a named accused on the basis of a superficial address check, and failed to record statements of independent eyewitnesses named in the complaint

Given these alleged investigative omissions and the potential for prejudice from the unrecovered stamp paper, the court held that the Magistrate had rejected the application mechanically and without sound reasons.

It directed the investigating agency to examine and record the identified eyewitnesses, investigate the missing property and alleged coercion concerning the stamp paper, and submit a supplementary charge-sheet or report within two months of communication of the order

The revision was disposed of, with no order as to costs.