Further Investigation Cannot Be Revived Through Executive Fiat After Cancellation Report Is Placed Before Court Without Prior Permission of Magistrate: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Tarun Trikha v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 26 August 2026
Citation: CRM-M-44031-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once an investigating agency completes its investigation and submits a cancellation or final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, it cannot commence further investigation merely on the basis of an executive direction issued by a superior police officer. If the investigating agency considers further investigation necessary, it must first move an appropriate application before the competent Magistrate, who must independently apply judicial mind to the reasons furnished and decide whether further investigation should be permitted. A subsequent order merely returning the case file to the police does not cure the absence of prior judicial permission, particularly when it records no independent satisfaction regarding the necessity of further investigation.
Summary: The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under Section 32 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 and Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was the owner or mastermind of an MLM and cryptocurrency scheme operating under the names “Upnomix” and “Oris Coin.” According to the complaint, the petitioner represented that investors could earn substantial returns and commissions, pursuant to which the complainant allegedly invested ₹10 lakh but received neither the promised returns nor repayment of the principal amount. After investigating the allegations and examining the purported transactions, the District Police concluded that no transaction connecting the complainant with the named accused had occurred in the Panipat area. A cancellation report dated 17 December 2024 was accordingly submitted before the ACJM, Panipat. Before the Magistrate could judicially consider that report, the ADGP, Crime, Haryana directed further investigation by the State Crime Branch through a communication dated 4 February 2025. The police subsequently obtained the original file from the Magistrate through an order dated 20 February 2025. The High Court observed that submission of a cancellation report does not automatically terminate criminal proceedings or create an indefeasible right in favour of the accused. The Magistrate may accept the report, disagree with it and take cognizance, consider a protest petition as a complaint, or direct further investigation. However, these options must be exercised judicially by the Magistrate. Once the cancellation report was placed before the court, the matter ceased to remain within the investigating agency’s exclusive domain. The ADGP could not bypass judicial scrutiny and revive the investigation through an executive direction.
Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The High Court set aside the ADGP’s communication dated 4 February 2025 directing further investigation and all consequential steps taken solely pursuant to it. The ACJM’s order dated 20 February 2025 was also set aside to the extent that it facilitated such further investigation and returned the cancellation-report file. The State was directed to place the cancellation report before the competent court within one month for independent consideration. The Magistrate was left free to accept the report, take cognizance on the available material, consider any protest petition or, upon a proper application by the investigating agency, decide whether further investigation should be permitted under Section 193(9) BNSS. The prayer for quashing the FIR itself was left open, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the allegations or the petitioner’s culpability.