Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Neeraj Purbia vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2026:RJ-JD:15317]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7674/2025
Neeraj Purbia S/o Shri Prem Chand Purbia, Aged About 50 Years,
263, Saheli Nagar Udaipur At Present 154 Building Salmiya
Kuwait.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Jitendra Kumar Jain S/o Bheru Lal (Anchaliya), Village
Pind Police Station Nikumbh Dist Chittorgarh At Present
Resident Of House No 73 Hiran Magri Sector 4 Police
Station Hiranmagri District Udaipur The Then Deputy
Superintendent Of Police Circle Nagar West Udaipur
3. Roshan Lal S/o Jeevan Khatik, Kotharia Police Station
Nathdwara Currently House No.221 Near Jhankar Hotel
Rajendra Nagar Police Station Sukher The Then Sub-
Inspector Of Police Station Sukher District Udaipur
4. Ramesh Rathod S/o Devi Lal, Neelam Apartment 1St
Floor, New Road Nathdwara Police Station Nathdwara Hall
Councilor Ward No.20, Municipality Nathdwara, District
Rajsamand.
5. Manoj Shrimali S/o Jagneshwar Shrimali, Plot No.113,
Technocrot Society, Bedla Road Police Station, Ambamata,
District Udaipur.
6. Ankit Mewada S/o Shyamlal Mewada, Lava Sardargarh,
District Rajsamand.
7. Lovleena W/o Late Nilesh Purbiya, 263 Saheli Nagar,
Udaipur.
8. Nikhil Porwal S/o Shri Basant Porwal, 3B-Ii, Hazarehswar
Colony, Udaipur.
9. Rajesh Kothari S/o Shri Prakash Chand, 190, Lal Bazar,
Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Adv. with
Mr. Puna Ram Sen, Adv.
Mr. Arpit Paliwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP with
Mr. P.K. Bhati, Asst. to G.A.
Mr. Ankur Mathur, Adv. with
Mr. Udit Mathur, for respondent No.2.
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (2 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
1. Date of conclusion of arguments : 02.04.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved : 02.04.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement : 09.04.2026
****
1. Instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated
28.07.2025, passed by learned Judge, Special Court, (Anti
Corruption Act) No.1, Udaipur in Special Sessions Case
No.23/2023 arising out of FIR No.507/2022 registered at CPC,
ACB, Jaipur, Anti Corruption Bureau, Special Unit-II, Jaipur,
whereby the application dated 05.07.2025 filed by the petitioner
to expunge the investigation made by the subsequent
Investigating Officer Shri Kailash Sandhoo, Additional
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh in
the aforesaid FIR, without any authorization, has been partly
allowed without expressly commenting on the validity of the
investigation made by him.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on
07.11.2022, a written report was submitted by the petitioner
before Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Unit Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Unit Jaipur to the effect that he was implicated
in a false and fabricated case by the corrupt police officials just to
extort money from him by unlawful means. On the said written
report, FIR No.507/2022 was registered for offence under Section
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (3 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
7 of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ‘PC Act‘). After
registration of FIR, initially investigation was conducted by Shri
Pushpendra Singh Rathore, Addl.S.P., who after thorough
investigation submitted charge-sheet for offences punishable
under Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act and Sections 384 & 120B
of the IPC against four accused respondents, namely (i) Roshanlal,
(ii) Jitendra Kumar Anchaliya, (iii) Manoj Kumar Shrimali & (iv)
Ramesh Rathore and investigation was kept pending against
remaining four accused respondents namely (i) Ankit Mewara, (ii)
Smt. Lovleena, (iii) Nikhil Porwal & (iv) Rajesh Kothari under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to ascertain their role in the alleged crime.
Subsequently, these four accused respondents against whom
investigation was kept pending, were granted interim protection
by this Court through the filing of separate misc. petitions.
3. Subsequently, accused-respondent No. 2, Jitendra Anchaliya,
submitted a representation before the Director General,
Department of Anti-Corruption, seeking investigation of the FIR on
certain points. In furtherance of the same, vide order dated
11.06.2024, the Director General directed Shri Kailash Singh
Sandhoo, Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Chittorgarh, to
conduct investigation in the case on the points raised by accused-
respondent No.2. Upon completion of investigation, on 02.05.2025
Shri Kailash Singh Sandhoo submitted result of investigation and
opined that except accused Roshanlal Khateek, rest of the
accused, namely (i) Ankit Mewara, (ii) Smt. Lovleena, (iii) Nikhil
Porwal & (iv) Rajesh Kothari, against whom investigation was kept
pending and (i) Jitendra Kumar Anchaliya, (ii) Manoj Kumar
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (4 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
Shrimali & (iii) Ramesh Rathore, against whom charge-sheet has
already been filed, are not found involved in the commission of
crime.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid investigation conducted by Shri
Kailash Singh Sandhoo, the petitioner preferred Criminal Writ
Petition No.1731/2024, which was disposed of by this Court along
with other connected misc. petitions filed by the accused-
respondents vide order dated 20.02.2025 and liberty was granted
to the petitioners to agitate all permissible legal and factual
contentions before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. The
trial Court was also directed to pass reasoned order in light of the
material on record and also consider the supplementary report
along with annexed material and make the same part of the
judicial record besides the record available with it. The said order
dated 20.02.2025 was challenged by the petitioner before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition
(SLP), which was also disposed of vide order dated 01.05.2025
while making it clear that the observations made in the order
impugned shall not affect the merits of the trial. In the meantime,
the petitioner filed criminal misc. petition, being No.9014/2024,
before this Court, praying that the learned trial Court may be
restrained from accepting the application filed by the Investigating
Agency under Section 169 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the accused
persons, namely Jitendra Anchaliya, Ramesh Rathore, and Manoj
Shrimali due to deficiency of evidence. However, the said petition
was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2025
while observing that the trial Court shall decide the said
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (5 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
application in accordance with law after considering the entire
material available on record.
5. After dismissal of the petition being No.9014/2024, the
petitioner filed an application dated 03.06.2025 before the learned
trial Court with the prayer to take cognizance against all the
accused persons. The petitioner also filed another application
dated 05.07.2025 before the trial Court, challenging the
investigation report dated 02.05.2025 submitted by Shri Kailash
Singh Sandhoo on the ground that it amounted to re-investigation
without any authority of law. However, the learned trial Court, vide
the impugned order dated 28.07.2025, without expressly deciding
the legality and sustainability of the alleged re-investigation
conducted by Shri Kailash Singh Sandhoo, merely observed that
the petitioner’s application was partly allowed and if the
investigation conducted by Shri Kailash Singh Sandhoo falls within
the scope of re-investigation, same shall not be considered by the
Court.
6. Hence, this Criminal Misc. Petition against the order dated
28.07.2025, passed by the learned trial Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
complainant strenuously asserts that the investigation has been
deliberately kept pending in respect of other accused persons,
apart from the four individuals against whom the charge-sheet has
been filed, under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. It is urged that the
attempt to proceed under the guise of “further investigation” is, in
substance, nothing but a re-investigation, which is impermissible
in law. It is submitted that the scope of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (6 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
limited and circumscribed, permitting only further investigation for
the purpose of collecting additional evidence or identifying
involvement of persons not previously brought within the ambit of
investigation. The provision does not authorize a fresh or de novo
investigation.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating
Officer lacks the authority to undertake re-investigation without
prior judicial authorization. Such an exercise, in any event,
constitutes an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that
there can be no re-investigation in the garb of further
investigation with the object of exonerating accused persons who
have already been charge-sheeted or to overturn findings
recorded in the earlier investigation. Any supplementary charge-
sheet intended to absolve such accused persons is, therefore,
legally unsustainable. It is further contended that the present
investigation is vitiated by malafide intent, undertaken with a view
to confer undue advantage upon the accused persons already
found culpable in the initial investigation. Such a tainted exercise
undermines the evidentiary sanctity of the material collected
therein.
9. Counsel submits that his above contentions are well
supported by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali alias
Deepak and Ors., reported in (2013) 5 SCC 762, whereby
Hon’ble Supreme Court has made a clear distinction between
“further investigation” and “re-investigation,” and while the former
is permissible within the statutory framework, the latter can only
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (7 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
be undertaken pursuant to orders of competent constitutional
Courts.
10. Finally, learned counsel contends that the above-mentioned
supplementary charge-sheet lacks all legal backing and has been
submitted without due regard to the established law applicable for
carrying out further investigation. It is submitted that the above
mentioned supplementary charge-sheet does not come under the
purview of law and is nothing but an unwarranted act which lacks
jurisdiction and authority. It is, therefore, urged by the learned
counsel that since the above mentioned supplementary charge-
sheet does not have any legal backing, it cannot be allowed to
stand on the record as it will severely affect the interests of the
applicant. In the given circumstances, it is most humbly requested
that the above mentioned supplementary charge-sheet be struck
off the record, and the application filed by him may be allowed in
toto.
11. Learned State Counsel and the counsel for respondent No.2
have firmly opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. According to them, the order passed by the learned trial
Court is well-reasoned, and does not suffer from any legal
deficiency, illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference by
this Court.
12. In addition, the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner regarding alleged re-investigation have been termed as
misconceived, it has been contended that, at the time of preparing
the first charge-sheet, investigation in respect of certain accused
persons was deliberately kept pending in terms of Section 173(8)
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (8 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
Cr.P.C., which empowers the investigating agency to conduct
further investigation, if necessary. Therefore, the filing of the
supplementary charge-sheet is a continuation thereof and is fully
within the ambit of the said statutory provision.
13. It is also argued that the opinion expressed in the
supplementary charge-sheet is that of the Investigating Officer,
formed on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of
further investigation. It is a well settled law that such an opinion is
not binding on the Court, which is required to apply its
independent mind to the material on record. In the event, a prima
facie case is made out, the Court may proceed against the
accused in accordance with law.
14. In view of the above arguments raised on behalf of the State
and also respondent No. 2, learned State counsel and counsel for
respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the petition.
15. I have considered the submissions advanced by both parties,
as well as the material available on record.
16. A perusal of the material on record reveals that FIR No.
507/2022 was lodged by the petitioner-complainant against the
accused respondents for an offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, “PC Act“). Initially, the
investigation in the said FIR was conducted by Shri Pushpendra
Singh Rathore, Additional Superintendent of Police, who, after a
thorough investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against four
accused respondents. However, the investigation was kept pending
against the remaining four accused persons under Section 173(8)
of Cr.P.C. to ascertain their role in the alleged crime.
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (9 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
Subsequently, vide order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Director
General, Department of Anti-Corruption, on a representation
submitted by accused-respondent No. 2, Jitendra Anchaliya,
further investigation in the FIR was entrusted to Shri Kailash Singh
Sandhoo, Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Chittorgarh,
who, upon completion of the investigation, expressed his opinion
that except accused Roshanlal, no other accused has been found
involved in the commission of the alleged offence and accordingly
he submitted supplementary report before the trial Court.
17. It is pertinent to note that, prior to the present matter, six
separate petitions concerning the same issue had been filed before
this Court. In one such petition, instituted by the present
petitioner himself, a prayer was made to transfer the investigation
to CBI or any other independent agency, on the ground that he
was dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau. The remaining five petitions were filed by the
accused persons seeking quashment of the FIR as well as all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
18. All the aforesaid petitions were heard together and
adjudicated by a common, reasoned order dated 20.02.2025.
While disposing of these petitions, this Court categorically
observed that, during the course of trial, the trial Court shall
assess the entirety of the investigative material including both the
initial and supplementary reports. Significantly, no objection to
this observation was raised by the present petitioner at that stage.
Furthermore, the said order dated 20.02.2025 has attained
finality, having been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (10 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
para 14 of the order dated 20.02.2025, this Court has observed as
under :
“14. Given the aforementioned considerations, this
Court finds no compelling ground to interfere with the
ongoing investigation or to transfer the matter to the
CBI or any other independent agency. The
petitioner’s grievances, though serious, have been
duly addressed by the designated authorities within
the framework of law. There is no demonstrable
miscarriage of justice or procedural infirmity
warranting judicial intervention.”
19. In this backdrop, it is essential to emphasize the well-settled
principle of law that a litigant must raise all available grounds of
challenge at the first instance. A party cannot be permitted to
adopt a fragmented approach to litigation by raising certain
grounds in one proceeding and reserving others for subsequent
proceedings. Such a course would not only lead to multiplicity of
litigation but would also undermine the doctrine of finality of
judicial decisions.
20. In the present case, it is evident that, even during the course
of arguments in the earlier petition, the petitioner did not raise
any objection regarding the legality or propriety of further
investigation. The sole grievance articulated was with respect to
the transfer of investigation to another agency. However, upon a
thorough consideration of the matter, this Court found no merit in
the said request and expressly held that the investigation
conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau was fair, unbiased, and
transparent. The Court further observed that the ACB is a
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (11 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
specialized investigative agency possessing requisite expertise to
investigate allegations of corruption.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, and particularly in light
of the earlier findings of this Court which have since been affirmed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the issue sought to be raised in
the present petition is no longer open for reconsideration.
22. It is a well-settled proposition of law that at the stage of
taking cognizance, the trial Court is not bound by the opinion
rendered by the Investigating Officer (IO) regarding the
commission or otherwise of an offence in the final report. The
opinion of the IO is merely recommendatory in nature and does
not amount to a judicial determination. It is incumbent upon the
Court to exercise its independent judicial discretion based on the
material placed before it.
23. The material to be considered at this stage includes
statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC,
documents collected during the course of investigation, seizure
memos, forensic reports and other documents forming part of the
charge-sheet. Upon consideration of the said material, the Court is
required to determine whether a prima facie case is made out. If
such a case exists, cognizance may be taken even where the IO
has filed a closure report. Conversely, even where a charge-sheet
has been filed, the Court may decline to take cognizance if the
material does not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding.
24. Moreover, it is equally well-settled that investigation does not
end merely with the filing of the final report under Section 173(2)
CrPC. Under Section 173(8) CrPC, the authority conducting the
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (12 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
investigation still enjoys the right to investigate even after filing
the charge-sheet. In case any further information, evidence, or
material comes into existence, the concerned authority can file
supplementary charge-sheets. It is worth mentioning that a
supplementary charge-sheet cannot be termed as an altogether
new or fresh report, but rather an extension of the earlier
investigation, and must be read conjointly with the original report.
25. In other words, the law is well-settled that while considering
the result of investigation, the Court exercises independent judicial
discretion, and while the opinion of the IO may carry persuasive
value, it is not conclusive. Thus, the investigation process
continues within the bounds of law, and supplementary charge-
sheets may be filed.
26. The Court, upon receiving a supplementary charge-sheet
(also known as a “further report”) filed by the investigating
authority under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. (Section 193 of the
BNSS, 2023), does not merely become an appendage in terms of
postal services. It takes up a supervisory function to ensure that
the investigation has been completed in its entirety without any
bias or delay tactics on the part of the investigating authority. The
functions of the Court may be enumerated as follows:
1. Joint Consideration (Mandatory Application of Judicial
Mind): It is incumbent upon the Court to look into the
original and supplementary charge-sheets together.
Cumulative Effect: The Magistrate has to exercise his
judicial mind regarding the cumulative effect of both the
reports, i.e., both the old evidence and the new evidence.
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (13 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
To Avoid Partial Cognizance: The Court cannot take
partial cognizance on the supplementary charge-sheet
without considering the original charge-sheet.
2. Verification of “New Evidence: It is essential for the
Court to confirm that the basis for issuing the
supplementary charge-sheet lies in fresh evidence, whether
oral or documentary in nature, gathered as part of the
“further investigation.
3. Guaranteeing Procedural Fairness (Right to Copy): It
is necessary that the Court ensures that a copy of the
supplementary charge-sheet, along with all other
documents related to it, is provided to the accused under
Section 207 CrPC.
4. Competence of the Court: In the event of new evidence
in cases where the supplementary charge-sheet brings
forth new material/evidence and/or new accused parties,
the jurisdictional powers of the Court include:
i) Taking cognizance: The Court has the power to
take cognizance of new crimes or new accused
parties. Recommitting the case: If the case was
previously committed to the Sessions Court, then the
magistrate may be required to send the
supplementary charge-sheet to the Sessions Court or,
alternatively, the Sessions Court acting as the Trial
Court may take cognizance of the new
crimes/offences.
ii) The power to refuse or ask for more
investigations although the police enjoy the right to
further investigate, the Court has the power to refuse
the report.
iii) Where the supplementary investigation turns
out to be malicious or incompetent, Court may ask
for more investigations, if the Court feels that the
supplementary investigation report is still lacking.
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15317] (14 of 14) [CRLMP-7674/2025]
27. It is also pertinent to mention here that another application
dated 03.06.2025 filed by the petitioner-complainant wherein he
prayed that cognizance be taken against all the accused persons,
has been considered and decided by learned trial Court on the
same day by the same impugned order dated 28.07.2025 whereby
cognizance was taken against accused Roshanlal for offence
punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and rest of the accused
persons were discharged from offences punishable under Sections
7, 7A & 12 of PC Act and Sections 384 & 120B IPC. The said order
by which the application dated 03.06.2025 was decided, has
already been assailed by the petitioner-complainant by filing the
revision petition and the same is pending before this Court.
28. It may be observed here that learned trial Court has passed
the impugned order in consonance with the observations made by
this Court while deciding the earlier petition filed by the petitioner-
complainant and five other connected petitions filed by the
accused respondents vide order dated 20.02.2025.
29. In wake of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.07.2025
passed by the learned trial Court deciding the application dated
05.07.2025 does not suffer from any illegality and perversity.
30. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Petitions stands dismissed.
31. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also
stand dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Manoj Solanki/-
(Uploaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:39:17 AM)
(Downloaded on 17/04/2026 at 09:29:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)