High Court affirms that when investigation has been conducted fairly and in accordance with law, and material statements and complaints have been duly considered, no further judicial directions for change of investigating officer or investigative process are warranted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The decision upholds the principle that such interventions are exceptional, reinforcing existing precedent, and serves as binding authority on courts subordinate to the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/10549/2025 of BABITA DEVI Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010290332025 |
| Date of Registration | 21-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | Ms. Justice Kirti Singh |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure (investigation; supervisory jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS) |
| Questions of Law | Whether directions under Section 528 BNSS for change of investigating official or investigation manner are warranted where investigation is shown to be fair and statements of key witnesses have been duly recorded and considered. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where the investigation has been conducted fairly and impartially, statements of relevant witnesses including prosecutrix have been recorded under Section 183 BNSS, complaints have been duly considered, and medical and age determination procedures have been followed, no further judicial directions are warranted under Section 528 BNSS. Such judicial intervention is not justified unless there is material to show investigation is biased or inadequate. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | No specific prior judgments cited in the order. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reliance placed on the status report and investigative material including statements under Section 183 BNSS and expert medical opinions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner sought directions for action against private respondents in relation to FIR 198/2024 (Sections 137, 61, 96 BNS) and for investigation by senior police official. State demonstrated that investigation was impartial; prosecutrix stated she went with accused by choice, no offence made out. Complaints annexed by petitioner had been investigated and closed; ossification test and age determination conducted by experts and CWC. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts (where similar facts arise and BNSS is applicable) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that High Court intervention under Section 528 BNSS to direct change of investigating officer or manner of investigation is not warranted where investigation is shown to have been conducted fairly, all crucial statements are recorded, and complaints are examined.
- Sets precedent that the fact of proper investigative procedure, including statements under Section 183 BNSS and medical/age determination, is sufficient to deny further judicial directions.
- Establishes that merely filing multiple complaints with similar allegations does not entitle petitioner to repeated or escalated investigative directions.
- Lawyers representing complainants must be prepared to demonstrate actual material indicating biased or inadequate investigation to seek such relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the petition for directions under Section 528 BNSS, including petitioner’s request for investigation by a higher-ranking police officer.
- It relied on the State’s status report, which detailed the impartial investigation, joining of the prosecutrix and accused in the process, and the prosecutrix’s voluntary statement under Section 183 BNSS.
- The Court noted that expert reports—dental surgeon, radiologist, orthopedic surgeon, and Child Welfare Committee (CWC)—were obtained to determine the prosecutrix’s age, reflecting thorough investigative steps.
- The Court found that all complaints by the petitioner were duly considered and found no irregularity or bias in the investigation.
- Accordingly, it held that no directions were required under Section 528 BNSS in these circumstances, and dismissed the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought directions for legal action against private respondents in connection with FIR and related complaints.
- Requested the investigation of the FIR be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent/Commissioner.
Respondent (State):
- Asserted that investigation was conducted fairly and impartially.
- Prosecutrix and accused were joined in investigation; prosecutrix gave voluntary, exculpatory statement under Section 183 BNSS.
- All complaints made by the petitioner were duly considered and closed.
- Medical and expert opinions were obtained to determine age, complying with due process.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed for issuance of directions against private respondents regarding FIR No. 198 dated 08.09.2024, registered under Sections 137, 61, 96 of BNS, 2023. Related complaints dated 02.12.2024 and 07.01.2025 were also referenced. The prosecutrix, upon being joined in investigation, stated voluntarily under Section 183 BNSS and before CWC that she went with the accused of her own will and nothing wrongful occurred. Expert and CWC opinions established her age. The State’s status report indicated fair and comprehensive investigation, and that the complainant’s submissions had already been addressed.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: The provision invoked for seeking High Court directions in criminal investigations.
- Section 183 BNSS: Governs recording of statements from material witnesses, here applied to capture the prosecutrix’s account before the Magistrate.
- Investigation protocols including obtaining medical and expert opinions (dental, radiological, orthopedic) and involving Child Welfare Committee to determine age were followed as per statutory requirements.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions expressed in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or guidelines have been issued in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing law on the limited scope of judicial interference in ongoing or completed criminal investigations.
Citations
No SCC, AIR, or other published citations provided in the judgment.
Judgment delivered by HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH in CRM-M/10549/2025, decided on 01-09-2025, High Court of Punjab & Haryana.