Magistrates Cannot Wash Their Hands After Ordering Investigation: Rajasthan High Court Clarifies the Scope of Section 175(3) BNSS 

Why Judicial Oversight Continues Even After a Magistrate Directs Investigation and What the Decision Means for Complainants, Investigating Agencies and the Criminal Justice System 

Introduction

One of the most important safeguards available to a complainant when the police fail to register or properly investigate a cognisable offence is the power of a Magistrate to direct an investigation. Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), this power is now contained in Section 175(3), which substantially replaces the earlier Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

A recurring practical question, however, has been whether the Magistrate’s role ends once such a direction is issued. If the police fail to act diligently, delay the investigation or simply allow the matter to stagnate, is the complainant required to approach the High Court, or does the Magistrate retain continuing authority to ensure compliance with the judicial order? In a significant recent decision, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified that a Magistrate does not become functus officio merely because an investigation has been ordered under Section 175(3) BNSS. Rather, the Court recognised that judicial oversight remains necessary to ensure that investigations are completed within a reasonable time and that judicial directions are not rendered meaningless through administrative inaction. 

The judgment is an important reaffirmation of judicial accountability within the criminal justice system and is likely to influence how Magistrates exercise their supervisory jurisdiction under the BNSS. 

The Evolution from the CrPC to the BNSS

Although the BNSS has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, Parliament has substantially retained the mechanism through which a Magistrate may direct the police to investigate a cognisable offence. Section 175(3) BNSS continues to serve an important constitutional purpose. 

It provides an independent judicial remedy where: 

• an FIR is not registered; 
• the police decline to investigate; 
• the investigation is unreasonably delayed; or 
• the complainant alleges that statutory duties are not being properly discharged. 

The provision therefore acts as an institutional safeguard against investigative inaction while preserving the separation between judicial functions and police investigations. 

Does the Magistrate’s Role End After Passing the Order?

This was the central issue before the Rajasthan High Court. In practice, many complaints remain pending for months or even years after an order directing investigation has been passed. Often, the investigating agency neither files its final report nor meaningfully progresses the investigation. In such situations, Magistrates have frequently adjourned matters without requiring status reports or monitoring compliance. This has led many litigants to approach constitutional courts seeking directions for completion of investigations, even though the original order directing investigation was passed by the Magistrate. 

The Rajasthan High Court has now clarified that this approach is inconsistent with the purpose of Section 175(3). 

The Rajasthan High Court’s Ruling

The High Court held that once a Magistrate directs an investigation under Section 175(3), the Court’s responsibility does not come to an end. The Magistrate retains supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the investigation progresses within a reasonable period and that the investigating agency complies with the judicial direction. The Court observed that merely issuing an order without monitoring compliance risks reducing the statutory remedy to a procedural formality. 

Importantly, the High Court emphasised that judicial supervision does not mean judicial investigation. The investigation continues to remain exclusively within the domain of the police. The Magistrate is not expected to dictate investigative strategy, evaluate evidence or direct how the investigation should be conducted. Instead, the supervisory role extends to ensuring that: 

• investigations are not indefinitely delayed; 
• judicial directions are implemented; 
• periodic progress is reviewed where necessary; and 
• undue administrative inaction is addressed through appropriate judicial directions. 

Why the Judgment Matters

The significance of the decision extends well beyond the facts of the individual case. 

Judicial Orders Must Produce Effective Results 

The purpose of Section 175(3) is to provide an effective remedy where the ordinary investigative process has failed. If the Magistrate’s role were to cease immediately after passing the order, there would be little practical mechanism to ensure that the police actually comply. 

The High Court’s interpretation therefore reinforces the principle that judicial orders must remain capable of meaningful implementation. 

Reducing Unnecessary Constitutional Litigation 

The judgment may also reduce the growing number of petitions filed before High Courts seeking directions for completion of investigations. Where Magistrates actively supervise compliance with their own orders, litigants may no longer need to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction merely because investigations remain pending. This promotes judicial efficiency and reinforces the role assigned to Magistrates under the BNSS. 

Protecting the Rights of Both Complainants and Accused Persons

The Court’s reasoning recognises that prolonged investigations prejudice all stakeholders. For complainants, investigative delay may amount to denial of access to justice. For accused persons, an indefinitely pending investigation creates prolonged uncertainty and may adversely affect reputation, employment and personal liberty. Judicial oversight therefore serves the interests of fairness for both sides rather than favouring either. 

Judicial Oversight Is Not Judicial Interference 

The judgment carefully preserves the distinction between supervision and investigation. Indian criminal procedure has consistently recognised that investigation is the exclusive function of the investigating agency. Courts ordinarily do not decide: 

• which witnesses should be examined; 
• what evidence should be collected; 
• what offences should ultimately be invoked; or 
• whether prosecution should eventually be launched. 

Those decisions remain within the statutory authority of the investigating agency. However, ensuring that the investigation is conducted diligently and within a reasonable timeframe falls squarely within the Magistrate’s supervisory jurisdiction. This distinction maintains the constitutional balance between judicial independence and investigative autonomy. 

Practical Implications Under the BNSS

The judgment has important practical implications for criminal litigation. 

For Magistrates

Magistrates exercising jurisdiction under Section 175(3) should consider: 

• fixing appropriate timelines for progress; 
• calling for periodic status reports where warranted; 
• ensuring that investigations do not remain dormant for prolonged periods; and 
• recording reasons where repeated delays occur. 

For Investigating Agencies 

Police authorities should recognise that compliance with judicial directions does not conclude upon registration of an FIR. Investigations are expected to progress diligently and culminate in an appropriate final report within a reasonable time. 

For Litigants 

Complainants facing prolonged investigative delay may first seek appropriate directions before the Magistrate who passed the order rather than immediately approaching the High Court. Conversely, accused persons may also rely upon prolonged and unexplained delay as a factor when seeking appropriate relief in accordance with law. 

The Continuing Relevance of Earlier Jurisprudence

Although the CrPC has now been replaced, the jurisprudence developed under Section 156(3) continues to retain persuasive value because Section 175(3) substantially preserves the underlying legislative framework. 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that the power to direct investigation carries with it incidental authority to ensure that such directions are effectively implemented. The Rajasthan High Court’s decision represents a logical continuation of that jurisprudence under the BNSS and adapts those principles to India’s new criminal procedural framework. 

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling reinforces an important principle of criminal procedure: judicial directions must not become empty formalities. A Magistrate who exercises statutory power to direct an investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS does not cease to have responsibility immediately thereafter. While the Court cannot conduct or control the investigation itself, it retains a supervisory obligation to ensure that its order is implemented meaningfully and within a reasonable time. 

As India’s criminal justice system transitions fully to the BNSS, the judgment provides timely guidance on the evolving role of Magistrates in balancing police autonomy with judicial accountability. By recognising that effective supervision is essential to effective investigation, the decision strengthens both procedural fairness and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. 

Last Updated on 25 July, 2026