# Constitutional Courts can intervene in an ongoing investigation if the same is being done unfairly or if a visible breach of fundamental rights is found by the courts

- Link: https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/
- Published: 2026-10-20T14:37:58+00:00
- Author: Ramprakash Rajagopal

Contents

 * [Appellant and impugned order challenged](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#appellant-and-impugned-order-challenged)
 * [Factual matrix](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#factual-matrix)
 * [Other courts verdicts](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#other-courts-verdicts)
 * [Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#core-legal-arguments-of-appellant-vs-respondent)
 * [Ratio Decidendi](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#ratio-decidendi)
 * [Directions issued](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#directions-issued)
 * [Important paragraphs](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#important-paragraphs)
 * [Only Constitutional courts can direct Denovo/Fresh Investigation beyond Section 173(8) CrPC on exceptional grounds](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#only-constitutional-courts-can-direct-denovofresh-investigation-beyond-section-1738-crpc-on-exceptional-grounds)
 * [Fair Investigation is a Fundamental Right under Article 21](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#fair-investigation-is-a-fundamental-right-under-article-21)
 * [Appreciation of power of constitutional courts to direct reinvestigation](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#appreciation-of-power-of-constitutional-courts-to-direct-reinvestigation)
 * [Supreme Court came to the conclusion that biased, tainted and manipulating investigation happened and caused injustice to the victim](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#supreme-court-came-to-the-conclusion-that-biased-tainted-and-manipulating-investigation-happened-and-caused-injustice-to-the-victim)
 * [Irreparable Nature of Injustice Suffered by Victims of Heinous Crimes](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#irreparable-nature-of-injustice-suffered-by-victims-of-heinous-crimes)
 * [Resources](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#resources)
 * [Editor’s Note/Author’s Note](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#editors-noteauthors-note)
 * [My Reasoning](https://section1.in/constitutional-courts-can-intervene-in-an-ongoing-investigation-if-the-same-is-being-done-unfairly-or-if-a-visible-breach-of-fundamental-rights-is-found-by-the-courts/#my-reasoning)

**Kusumavati Gowda Vs. The Government of Karnataka & Ors. – Criminal Appeal No. 
of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5763 of 2026) – 2026 INSC 1030 – September
21, 2026 – Sanjay Kumar, J. and Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.**

[https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=665872025&type=j&order_date=2026-09-21&from=latest_judgements_order](https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=665872025&type=j&order_date=2026-09-21&from=latest_judgements_order)

##### **Appellant and impugned order challenged**

The appeal was prosecuted by the mother of the deceased victim after the demise 
of the original writ petitioner, challenging the final judgment and order dated 
30.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No.
3301 of 2024, whereby the High [Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a direction](https://section1.in/madras-high-court-directed-vigilance-to-inquire-about-a-senior-counsel-receiving-rs-50-lakh-as-fees-to-give-judge-to-get-order/)
to the Central Bureau of Investigation or an independent Special Investigation Team
to conduct a de novo investigation or reinvestigation into the brutal rape and murder
of their minor daughter. (paras 2, 23, 24)

##### **Factual matrix**

On 09.10.2012, the victim went missing on her way back from college near Mannasanka
bus stop in Dharmasthala Village, and on the following morning, her half-naked body
was found tied to a tree inside thick bushes with severe marks of strangulation 
and penetrative sexual assault. Although the local police subsequently arrested 
one person on 13.10.2012, public protests erupted alleging that three local influential
persons were being shielded, prompting the state government to transfer the probe
first to the Criminal Investigation Department and later to the Central Bureau of
Investigation, yet both agencies concurred with the local police, giving a clean
chit to the suspected trio and charge-sheeting the arrested individual alone. (paras
3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15)

##### **Other courts verdicts**

By judgment dated 16.06.2023, the Sessions Court [acquitted the accused](https://section1.in/juvenile-justice-act-2015-though-offences-pocso-and-murder-have-been-proved-accused-acquitted-based-on-procedural-illegalities/)
of all charges, holding that there was no evidence connecting him to the crime, 
that his medical condition rendered him incapable of committing such an assault,
and that crucial forensic evidence was ruined, thereby directing action against 
erring officials. Dismissing the subsequent writ petition and the criminal appeal
against acquittal, the High Court held that while the acquittal logically demanded
reinvestigation, [medical and forensic evidence could not be improved](https://section1.in/dying-declaration-though-there-are-inconsistencies-and-improvements-in-the-witnesses-statements-dying-declaration-corroborated-with-medical-evidence-has-proved-the-guilt-of-the-accused/)
and no useful purpose would be served since evidence missed at the golden hour was
no longer available. (paras 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 46)

##### **Core legal arguments of appellant vs respondent**

The appellant contended that the constitutional courts possess untrammelled powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to direct a de novo investigation when previous probes were demonstrably
tainted, biased, and orchestrated to shield the real perpetrators, emphasising that
biological evidence such as foreign hair strands on the victim’s clothes remained
available for comparative DNA testing. Conversely, the respondent-authorities stood
by the High Court’s reasoning, maintaining that after the culmination of a full-
fledged trial, charge-sheet submissions under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, and the passage of over a decade, golden-hour clues were permanently 
lost, making a de novo inquiry an exercise in futility that could disrupt settled
proceedings. (paras 13, 16, 23, 26, 46, 48, 50)

##### **Ratio Decidendi**

Fair, transparent, and judicious investigation is an indispensable part of the fundamental
right to life and fair trial guaranteed under [Article](https://section1.in/terrorist-act-bail-is-a-fundamental-right-under-article-21-of-the-constitution-even-for-unlawful-activities-prevention-act-1967-shoma-kanti-sen/)
21 of the Constitution of India, and where an investigation is tainted, biased, 
or conducted to help culprits escape the clutches of law, constitutional courts 
have an expansive power and duty under judicial review to order a de novo investigation
by an independent agency or Special Investigation Team to prevent miscarriage of
justice, which cannot be curtailed merely by commencement or conclusion of trial
or passage of time, especially in heinous crimes where justice to the deceased victim
cannot be compromised. (paras 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60)

##### **Directions issued**

The Supreme Court [set aside the impugned High Court order](https://section1.in/habeas-corpus-unexplained-delay-in-disposing-the-representation-made-by-the-detenu-is-sufficient-to-set-aside-the-order-of-detention/)
and directed that a de novo investigation be conducted in Crime No. 250/2012 by 
a newly constituted Special Investigation Team formed by the State of Karnataka,
headed by a senior [police officer](https://section1.in/case-diary-section-1723-cr-p-c-the-accused-has-a-right-to-cross-examine-police-officer-as-per-section-145-evidence-act-whenever-the-police-officer-uses-it-to-refresh-his-memory/)
and equipped with modern investigative technology. It strictly directed that no 
police [officer associated with the earlier investigations](https://section1.in/in-cross-case-or-case-in-counter-the-i-o-has-to-file-both-the-final-reports-before-the-jurisdictional-magistrate/)
by the Belthangady Police, CID, or CBI shall be part of this Special Investigation
Team. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the acquitted individual Santhosh Rao 
shall not be subjected to further investigation or prosecution by virtue of Article
20(2) of the [Constitution and Section](https://section1.in/weapon-not-used-however-exhibiting-the-same-would-constitute-section-397-ipc/)
300 CrPC, clarified that no opinion was expressed on the role of any individual 
named by the family, and mandated that the fresh investigation be concluded and 
its police report filed before the concerned court within three months. (paras 61)

##### **Important paragraphs**

##### **Only Constitutional courts can direct Denovo/Fresh Investigation beyond Section 173(8) CrPC on exceptional grounds**

53. The [Supreme Court](https://section1.in/burden-of-proof-public-prosecutor-while-explaining-the-principles-of-106-iea-in-criminal-cases-honble-supreme-court-has-addressed-the-government-to-appoint-skilled-lawyers-as-public-prosec/)
in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) held that normally when an investigation has been
concluded and police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code, it is only further investigation that can be ordered under Section 173(8) 
of the Criminal Procedure Code. But where the Constitutional Court is satisfied 
that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, 
fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to 
secure the ends of justice so that truth is revealed. It held that the [power to direct fresh investigation](https://section1.in/powers-of-magistrate-u-s-1563-direction/)
may be exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has
been done in a manner to help someone escape the clutches of the law. In such exceptional
circumstances the court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice,
direct de novo investigation.

##### **Fair Investigation is a Fundamental Right under Article 21**

54. The [Supreme Court](https://section1.in/supreme-court-on-corporate-criminal-liability-the-new-three-stage-test-for-attributing-mens-rea-to-a-company/)
held that a fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will
naturally not be fair. Investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as 
it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. **The investigating agency cannot 
be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non-
interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the [court must](https://section1.in/court-must-extremely-cautious-in-passing-adverse-remarks-in-bail/)
interfere**.

55. Relying upon the decision in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh (supra), the [Supreme Court](https://section1.in/supreme-court-on-corporate-criminal-liability-the-new-three-stage-test-for-attributing-mens-rea-to-a-company/)
in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) held that if deficiency in investigation or prosecution
is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the realities
or covering the obvious deficiency, courts have to deal with the same with an iron
hand appropriately within the framework of law. In order to ensure that the criminal
prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, in [appropriate cases this Court can even constitute Special](https://section1.in/s-c-quashed-g-o-of-tamilnadu-for-anti-land-grabbing-cell-and-adviced-to-enact-appropriate-legislation-for-land-grabbing-cases/)
Investigating Team and also give appropriate directions to the Central and State
Governments and other authorities to give all required assistance to such specially
constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits and for effective
conduct of the prosecution. And in [exceptional circumstances the Court](https://section1.in/in-exceptional-circumstances-the-court-may-grant-anticipatory-bail-to-an-absconder-but-a-co-accuseds-acquittal-does-not-ipso-facto-entitle-him-to-a-b-relief/)
in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers necessary may
direct for investigation de novo.

**56.** Reference was also made by the [Supreme Court](https://section1.in/supreme-court-on-corporate-criminal-liability-the-new-three-stage-test-for-attributing-mens-rea-to-a-company/)
in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) to the judgment in Pooja Pal (supra) wherein it has
been held that a criminal offence is one against the society at large casting an
onerous responsibility on the State, as the guardian and purveyor of human rights
and protector of law to discharge its sacrosanct role responsibly and committedly,
always accountable to the law-abiding citizenry for any lapse.

##### **Appreciation of power of constitutional courts to direct reinvestigation**

**57.** The power of the constitutional courts to direct further investigation or
reinvestigation is a dynamic component of its jurisdiction to exercise judicial 
review, a basic feature of the Constitution and though has to be exercised with 
due care and caution and informed with self-imposed restraint, the plenitude and
content thereof can neither be enervated nor moderated by any legislation.

**58.** The Supreme Court in Neetu Kumar Nagaich (supra) also relied upon the decision
in Rattiram (supra) wherein it was held that the victim cannot be afforded to be
treated as an alien or total stranger to the criminal trial and [criminal jurisprudence](https://section1.in/basics-of-criminal-law-part-3-criminal-jurisprudence/)
with the passage of time has laid emphasis on victimology, which fundamentally is
the perception of a trial from the viewpoint of criminal as well as the victim when
judged in the social context.

##### **Supreme Court came to the conclusion that biased, tainted and manipulating investigation happened and caused injustice to the victim**

59. In a case where a minor [girl of 17 years of age is brutally raped](https://section1.in/whether-sexual-intercourse-between-a-man-and-his-wife-being-a-girl-between-15-and-18-years-of-age-is-rape/)
and murdered, the manner in which the investigation had progressed and the manner
in which the various investigating agencies conducted the investigation and gathered
and evaluated the evidence shocks the very conscience of the court. The person who
was prosecuted was held to be incapable of [committing the offence](https://section1.in/offence-committed-in-journey-or-voyage/).
Clearly the investigation has been conducted in a manner that causes injustice to
the victim. The possibility of the real culprit(s) manipulating the investigation
cannot be ruled out. Such lax and improper [investigation gives premium to the Investigating Officers](https://section1.in/in-cross-case-or-case-in-counter-the-i-o-has-to-file-both-the-final-reports-before-the-jurisdictional-magistrate/)
who failed to do their job correctly and diligently.

##### **Irreparable Nature of Injustice Suffered by Victims of Heinous Crimes**

**60.** Injustice to a person who was falsely charged can always be compensated,
however injustice to the victim who was brutally raped and then murdered can never
be compensated. Society would be failing in its duty if it does not provide justice
to the victim of such a heinous [crime by conducting a proper investigation](https://section1.in/a-forensic-guide-for-crime-investigators-standard-operating-procedures/)
and bringing the real culprits to the book.

**61.** In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms:

> (i) impugned order dated 30.08.2024 in WP No. 3301 of 2024, in so far as it dismisses
> the Writ Petition filed by Sri Chandappa Gowda, is [set aside](https://section1.in/digitization-of-records-records-not-available-in-the-appeal-conviction-set-aside/)
> and
> (ii) a denovo investigation be carried out in Cr.No.250/2012 originally registered
> by the Belthangady [Police as per the Complaint](https://section1.in/even-in-a-case-where-the-final-report-of-the-police-under-section-173-is-accepted-and-the-accused-persons-are-discharged-the-magistrate-has-the-power-to-take-cognizance-of-the-offence-on-a-complaint/)
> dated 09.10.2012 & First Information Report in Crime No.250/2012 dated 09.10.2012
> and re-registered as FIR No.RC.2(S)/2014/CBI/SCB/CHENNAI dated 07.03.2014 by CBI,
> SCB Chennai; and
> (iii) Respondent No. 1 State of Karnataka shall constitute a Special Investigation
> Team comprising efficient investigators, well conversant with the use of modern
> investigative technology, headed by a senior police officer of the State; and
> (iv) no officer who was part of the investigation teams of the Belthangady [Police Station](https://section1.in/custody-death-or-station-death-if-the-death-takes-place-inside-the-police-station-the-accused-persons-should-be-punished-for-the-offence-under-section-302-ipc/),
> CID or CBI who had been associated with the earlier investigation shall be part
> of the Special Investigation Team; and
> (v) Since, Santhosh Rao has already been tried and acquitted by the [Sessions Court](https://section1.in/whether-magistrate-can-commit-the-cross-case-triable-by-magistrate-offences-to-sessions-court-u-s-323-cr-p-c/)
> in the subject FIR, he enjoys the protection of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution
> of India and Section 300 CrPC from being tried or prosecuted a second time, he
> shall not be subjected to further investigation or prosecution; and
> (vi) nothing stated herein shall be construed as expressing an opinion, even [prima facie](https://section1.in/high-court-has-granted-bail-without-contemplating-statements-recorded-u-s-161-and-164-cr-p-c-for-considering-prima-facie-in-grave-offences/),
> on the role of any individual including Mallik Jain, Deeraj Jain and Uday Jain.
> The Special Investigating Team shall conduct the investigation without being influenced
> by anything stated on merits in this order; and
> (vii) fresh investigation shall be concluded within a period of three months and
> the police report shall be [filed before the court concerned](https://section1.in/section-451-cr-p-c-petition-for-disposal-return-of-property-cannot-be-filed-directly-by-invoking-article-226-without-invoking-section-451-cr-p-c-before-the-concerned-court/)
> in accordance with law, whereafter the matter shall proceed in accordance with
> law.

**62.** The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

##### **Resources**

**Judgments Cited**

Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali @Deepak and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762 – Held that the power
to direct fresh investigation, reinvestigation, or de novo investigation falls within
the domain of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

Popular Muthiah vs State (2006) 7 SCC 296 – Relied upon by the High Court to hold
that medical and forensic evidence cannot be improved and evidence not collected
at the golden hour is lost.

Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 16 SCC 777 – Extensively examined
the [power of the Constitutional Court to direct](https://section1.in/section-482-crpc-only-high-court-has-the-power-to-direct-to-run-sentences-in-two-different-cases-concurrently/)
a de novo investigation to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn. 1988 Supp SCC 482: 1988 SCC (Cri) 864 – Observed that
fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to 
secure the ends of justice.

Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336 – Held that
fair investigation is part of constitutional rights under Articles 20 and 21, and
tainted investigations warrant de novo probes.

Ganeshbhai Jakshibhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat 2009 SCC OnLine Guj 12130 – Noted
that an independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation 
when courts interfere in tainted cases.

Bharati Tamang v. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 578: (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 566 – Emphasized
that [courts can constitute a Special](https://section1.in/pmla-cognizance-under-pmla-special-court-can-take-cognizance-only-by-way-of-complaint-filed-by-the-authority-authorized-on-this-behalf/)
Investigation Team and direct a de novo investigation to unravel conspiracies and
correct obvious deficiencies.

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004 SCC (Cri) 
999 – Ruled that courts have to deal with deficiencies in investigation or prosecution
with an iron hand to ensure material facts are brought on record.

Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 743 – Noticed that
directing reinvestigation is a dynamic component of judicial review to hold the 
State accountable for criminal offences against society.

Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 516 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 481 – Postulated
that [criminal jurisprudence](https://section1.in/suicide-no-dowry-demand-a-moral-conviction-regarding-the-guilt-of-an-individual-has-no-place-in-criminal-jurisprudence/)
emphasizes victimology and the victim cannot be treated as an alien to the criminal
trial.

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana (2016) 4 SCC 160: (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 259 – Held that
commencement of trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment
for ordering fresh or de novo investigation.

Hasanbhai Valighai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarath and Others AIR 2004 SC 2078 – Relied
upon to assert that the Sessions Judge has the [power to order further investigation under Section](https://section1.in/section-311-a-cr-p-c-who-has-the-power-magistrate-or-investigating-officer/)
173(8) of Cr.P.C.

Acts and Sections Involved

Constitution of India: Article 20(2), Article 21, Article 226, Article 227.

Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 173(2), Section 173(8), Section 178(3), Section
300, Section 319, Section 482.

[Indian Penal Code](https://section1.in/title-understanding-section-120b-of-the-indian-penal-code-ipc-criminal-conspiracy-and-its-implications/):
Section 201, Section 302, Section 376. [Indian Evidence Act](https://section1.in/in-npds-cases-confession-is-hit-under-section-25-indian-evidence-act/):
Section 27.

##### **Editor’s Note/Author’s Note**

Does this judgment of the Hon’ble [Supreme Court override the powers or rights that the law](https://section1.in/30-landmark-supreme-court-of-india-criminal-law-judgments-explained/)
gives to the police or investigating authorities? No, it does not.

Before looking at the reasoning, let us use the following judgments to understand
the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive (the police officials
in this case) under the Constitution.

**1. _King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad_ (1944) L.R. 71 I.A. 203 (Privy Council)–**_(
Affirmed by a 5-Judge [Constitution Bench](https://section1.in/section-319-cr-p-c-summoning-of-accused-after-the-pronouncement-whether-valid/)
in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, AIR 1963 SC 447, and a 3-Judge Bench in State
of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554)_

“In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the [police to investigate](https://section1.in/understanding-the-police-report-investigation-and-magistrates-duties-in-criminal-cases/)
the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority
from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate
result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by
an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the judiciary
and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual
liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving
each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the
court to intervene in an appropriate case when the charge is preferred before it.
The court’s functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then.
It has sometimes been thought that [Section 561A has given increased powers](https://section1.in/even-in-a-case-where-the-final-report-of-the-police-under-section-173-is-accepted-and-the-accused-persons-are-discharged-the-magistrate-has-the-power-to-take-cognizance-of-the-offence-on-a-complaint/)
to the court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this 
is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the
[court already inherently possesses shall](https://section1.in/4076-2/) be preserved
and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the
only powers the court possesses are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure
Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act”.

**2. _State of Bihar & Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors._ (1980) 1 SCC 554 – Bench:**
3-Judge Bench (V.R. Krishna Iyer, D.A. Desai, & A.D. Koshal, JJ.)

“25. There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of
crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field reserved
for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests
in the State Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep [vigilance over the law and order](https://section1.in/madras-high-court-directed-vigilance-to-inquire-about-a-senior-counsel-receiving-rs-50-lakh-as-fees-to-give-judge-to-get-order/)
situation and each infraction of the law will direct its active attention into an
investigation of the offence. The power of the police to investigate into a cognizable
offence is ordinarily not subject to the control of the judiciary… The power of 
the [police to investigate any cognizable offence](https://section1.in/custody-death-or-station-death-if-the-death-takes-place-inside-the-police-station-the-accused-persons-should-be-punished-for-the-offence-under-section-302-ipc/)
is an unfettered statutory right and the function of the judiciary starts only when
a charge-sheet is submitted by the police or when a complaint is preferred before
the Magistrate and Magistrate is called upon to take cognizance of the offence”.

**3. _M.C. Abraham & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors._ (2003) 2 SCC 758 – Bench:**
3-Judge Bench (N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.)

“17. The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is for the [investigating agency to submit a report](https://section1.in/understanding-the-police-report-investigation-and-magistrates-duties-in-criminal-cases/)
to the Magistrate after full and complete investigation and that it is for the Magistrate
to consider whether to accept the report or not. The Magistrate cannot compel the
investigating agency to submit a report in a particular manner, nor can the Magistrate
take away the discretion of the investigating agency to form an opinion on the basis
of the evidence collected by it; for that will be encroaching on the field reserved
for the investigating agency. The High Court, in our opinion, has also no power 
to compel the investigating agency to submit a report in a particular manner and
the High Court also cannot compel the investigating agency to arrest an [accused person](https://section1.in/pmla-pc-act-prosecuting-the-person-accused-of-an-offence-under-section-131e-of-the-pc-act-as-well-as-for-an-offence-under-section-3-of-pmla-would-not-amount-to-double-jeopardy/)
against whom an investigation is proceeding”.

**4. _Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors._ (2008) 3 SCC 542 – Bench:**
2-Judge Bench (Altamas Kabir & Markandey Katju, JJ.)

“41. It is well settled that the power of the police to investigate any cognizable
offence is a statutory right over which the court does not possess any supervisory
control. The court has no power to stop the investigation into a cognizable offence
nor has it the power to direct that a particular line of investigation should be
adopted by the investigating officer. The investigation of an offence is the field
exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, superintendence
over which vests in the State Government”.

**5. _[Neeharika Infrastructure](https://section1.in/quashing-fir-high-court-cannot-conduct-mini-investigation-under-section-482-cr-p-c-as-per-neeharika-infrastructure-case/)
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors._ (2021) 19 SCC 401 – Bench:** 3-Judge Bench(
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, M.R. Shah, & Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)

**“Paragraph 57 (Core Conclusion / Principles):**

57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy
Council in the case of Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law
emerge:

(i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to [investigate](https://section1.in/officers-investigating-the-offence-are-duty-bound-to-be-vigilant-before-invoking-any-provision-of-a-very-stringent-statute-like-the-sc-st-act/)
into a cognizable offence;

(ii) Courts would not thwart any [investigation](https://section1.in/court-cannot-return-final-report/)
into the cognizable offences and only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence
of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not
permit an investigation to go on;

(iii) The power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection,
in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare [cases standard in this context for quashing](https://section1.in/rape-case-santosh-gurung-vs-state-of-sikkim-s-c-quashes-life-sentence-based-on-broken-circumstantial-evidence/)
of FIRs does not mean that the Court can operate only in cases where death penalty
would be awarded);

(iv) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
[embark upon an enquiry](https://section1.in/high-courts-shall-not-conduct-mini-trial-by-embarking-upon-an-enquiry-about-the-credibility-of-the-allegations-in-the-complaint-and-the-fir/)
as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;

(v) [Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial](https://section1.in/initiation-of-criminal-proceeding-under-sections-138-141-n-i-act-is-covered-under-moratorium-provision-u-s-14-ibc/)
stage;

(vi) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary
rule…

60. The statutory power has been given to the police to investigate the cognizable
offence, without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would
be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory
rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The functions of
the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping”.

#####  **My** **Reasoning**

What actually Hon’ble [Supreme Court meant in section 54 in this judgment](https://section1.in/abu-salem-case-supreme-court-rejects-premature-release-plea-2026-insc-982/)
was that though there are statutory rights which debars the courts to interfere 
in the investigation (please note that monitoring the investigation is not barred
to the trial courts), but, during the ongoing investigation is being done in an 
unfair manner or there is a visible breach of fundamental rights guaranteed by the
Constitution (only by monitoring the investigation the courts may find our the unfairness
of investigation hence there is no bar to monitor the investigation), the Constitutional
courts has powers to interfere in the investigation inasmuch the Writ or orders 
may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directly by invoking Article-32 (note:
even any citizen may directly approach the Hon’ble S.C by invoking Article-32 if
there is a breach of fundamental rights since Article 32 was drafted within the 
Chapter of Fundamental rights) and approach the Hon’ble High Courts under section
528 BNSS (previously section 482) for re investigation. But the [powers of trial courts](https://section1.in/cr-p-c-1973-notes-no-6-general-introduction-to-inquiries-and-trials-part-4-criminal-courts-powers-administration/)
are limited to further investigation only and not to grant fresh or re-investigation
since they are not constitutional courts or have any inherent powers.

Paragraph 54 is therefore distinguishing statutory and fundamental rights in a correct
manner.

[665872025_2026-09-21](https://section1.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/665872025_2026-09-21-1.pdf)
[Download](https://section1.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/665872025_2026-09-21-1.pdf)

### Further Study

 * [Powers of Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C to direct the SHO to investigation](https://section1.in/powers-of-magistrate-u-s-1563-direction/)
 * [No private funding in police investigation](https://section1.in/no-private-funding-in-police-investigation/)
 * [Whether the investigation officer (station house officer) can foreclose the information before and after investigation?](https://section1.in/whether-the-investigation-officer-station-house-officer-can-foreclose-the-information-before-and-after-investigation/)
 * [Investigation and framing of charge: Procedures: Explained](https://section1.in/investigation-framing-of-charge-procedures-explained/)
 * [Further Investigation: Magistrate can direct further investigation under section156(3) Cr.P.C till framing of charges](https://section1.in/further-investigation-by-magistrate-u-1563-till-framing-of-charges/)