In a landmark ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, in Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1375/2023), reiterated the legal requirement that no further investigation can be conducted against a prime accused without the trial court’s permission, once an investigative report has been filed. The decision was issued by Justice Arun Monga, who quashed the FIR filed against Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, finding no evidence to support the allegations.
Background of the Case:
The case stemmed from FIR No. 32/2019, registered on August 23, 2019, at the Special Police Station (SOG), District Jaipur. The FIR was lodged against Gajendra Singh Shekhawat under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)—including Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 467 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy)—as well as Section 65 of the Information Technology Act. The allegations were related to a large-scale financial fraud involving a multi-state cooperative society.
Shekhawat, represented by senior advocate Mr. V.R. Bajwa, along with advocates Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Mr. Ajit Sharma, and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR. His legal team contended that despite extensive investigations, no evidence had been found implicating him in the scam. They argued that the investigation had resulted in four charge-sheets being filed, none of which named Shekhawat as an accused.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue in the case was the applicability of Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure in Rajasthan. Section 193(9) governs the scope of further investigation after a report has been submitted against the prime accused. The provision asserts that once a report is filed, further investigation during the trial can only be conducted with the explicit permission of the trial court.
Shekhawat’s counsel argued that the prosecution had exhausted its scope of investigation, and without additional evidence, further inquiries would be legally impermissible under Section 193(9) of the BNSS. The legal team stressed that Shekhawat had not been mentioned in any of the charge-sheets, and continuing the investigation without solid grounds would be unjust.
Court’s Observations:
During the hearing, the Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan, Mr. Deepak Choudhary, assisted by Ms. Sonu Manawat and Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, presented a factual report dated September 24, 2024. The report concluded that no offence was committed by Shekhawat, and no supplementary charge-sheet was to be filed against him. The state counsel confirmed that the allegations against Shekhawat were found to be “completely unsubstantiated.”
Justice Arun Monga, after reviewing the report, expressed agreement with the State’s submission, concluding that “no culpability of commission of any offence is attributable to the petitioner.”
Furthermore, Justice Monga cited Section 193(9) of the BNSS to emphasize the limitations on further investigation once a report has been submitted:
“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (3) has been forwarded to the Magistrate… Provided that further investigation during the trial may be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same shall be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court.”
The court observed that this provision serves as a safeguard against indefinite or arbitrary investigations, ensuring that the trial process is not unnecessarily prolonged without judicial oversight.
Decision of the Court:
In light of the findings, Justice Monga quashed the FIR against Shekhawat, stating that his prayer for quashing the FIR “does not survive any adjudication” as there was no evidence linking him to the alleged offences. The court also underscored that, per Section 193(9), no further investigation could be initiated without the permission of the trial court, reiterating the need for judicial scrutiny in the continuation of investigations post-report filing.
