The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that further investigation in criminal cases cannot be ordered merely to fill perceived gaps or pursue speculative digital leads, especially when raised at a belated stage after prosecution evidence has closed. This ruling underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention under Section 348 BNSS and reinforces the principle that investigations must be conducted fairly and thoroughly at the initial stage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a complainant in a sexual offence case, sought quashing of an order dated 11.02.2026 passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal, which dismissed his application under Section 348 BNSS (read with Section 193(9) BNSS) for further investigation. The case stems from FIR No. 208 dated 02.07.2024, registered under Sections 376-D, 34, 120-B IPC and Sections 6 & 17 of the POCSO Act, at Police Station Munak, District Karnal. The allegations involve the rape of a minor girl and the subsequent circulation of a video of the incident on social media.
Key Facts
- The alleged video was recorded by respondent No.2 on his mobile phone and uploaded to social media on 04.07.2024
- A pen drive containing the video was seized by police on 04.07.2024 and submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
- The FSL report dated 15.11.2024 found no matching video file in the internal memory of the mobile phone submitted for forensic examination
- The petitioner alleged that a different mobile phone, not the one used to upload the video, was sent to the FSL
- Two co-accused were initially omitted from the FIR but were later summoned after the petitioner filed an application under Section 210 BNSS
- The prosecution examined all 17 witnesses, and charges were framed against respondent No.2 on 21.03.2025
- The trial is currently at the stage of defence evidence
Procedural History
- 02.07.2024: FIR No. 208 registered under Sections 376-D, 34, 120-B IPC and Sections 6 & 17 of POCSO Act
- 04.07.2024: Alleged video seized on pen drive; Section 67 IT Act added to the case
- 15.11.2024: FSL report submitted, indicating no video found in the mobile phone examined
- 20.12.2024: Charge-sheet filed against respondent No.2
- 21.03.2025: Charges framed against respondent No.2
- Prior to 02.02.2026: Two earlier applications for further investigation filed and dismissed
- 02.02.2026: Petitioner filed application under Section 348 BNSS seeking recovery of data from respondent’s Instagram account and re-investigation
- 11.02.2026: Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Karnal dismissed the application
- 16.03.2026: Writ petition filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- 16.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Kirti Singh
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the order dated 11.02.2026 dismissing the application for further investigation; (2) direction to cyber crime or other investigating agencies to retrieve deleted data and IP logs from respondent No.2’s Instagram account; and (3) re-investigation to recover the mobile phone used to upload the video.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court may order further investigation under Section 348 BNSS at a belated stage - after prosecution evidence has closed and charges have been framed - merely on allegations of mala fide conduct and unverified claims of evidence tampering, without any documentary substantiation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the investigation was tainted by mala fides, citing: (1) failure to recover the mobile phone used to upload the video; (2) submission of a different mobile phone to the FSL; (3) omission of two co-accused from the FIR without justification; and (4) absence of digital evidence despite oral testimony. He relied on State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendra Reddy and Another to contend that courts must intervene where investigation is demonstrably incomplete or biased.
For the Respondent
The State counsel submitted that the investigation was thorough and lawful. The pen drive containing the video was seized on 04.07.2024, and the FSL report was duly submitted. The charge-sheet was filed on 20.12.2024, and charges were framed on 21.03.2025. The trial is ongoing, and the petitioner’s claims of device substitution were unsubstantiated. No document, malkhana discrepancy, or contemporaneous objection was produced to support the allegations.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the power to order further investigation under Section 348 BNSS is not a tool for re-investigating the case or repairing prosecutorial shortcomings. It must be exercised sparingly and only where the investigation is shown to be tainted, unfair, or demonstrably incomplete.
"Further investigation cannot be converted into a tool to repair what the prosecution failed to prove."
The Court noted that the petitioner’s allegations regarding the substitution of mobile phones were bald assertions without supporting evidence. No malkhana register discrepancy, no chain-of-custody break, and no contemporaneous objection during trial were brought to the Court’s attention. The mere difference in exhibit numbers was held insufficient to establish tampering.
The Court also rejected the request for retrieval of Instagram data, IP logs, or deleted files as a "fishing and roving inquiry," particularly when raised after the prosecution had closed its evidence. The absence of any foundational material - such as screenshots, timestamps, or metadata linking the video to the Instagram account - rendered the request speculative.
The Court further observed that the trial Court had already considered the petitioner’s submissions and found no irregularity. The High Court declined to substitute its opinion for that of the trial Court absent perversity or illegality.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that no compelling circumstances warranted further investigation. The order dated 11.02.2026 dismissing the application under Section 348 BNSS was upheld. No direction was issued for retrieval of digital data. The trial shall proceed as scheduled, with the defence presenting its evidence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Further Investigation Is Not a Remedy for Weak Prosecution
- Practitioners must ensure that applications for further investigation under Section 348 BNSS are filed at the earliest opportunity, not after prosecution evidence closes
- Allegations of mala fide or evidence tampering require concrete documentation - oral assertions or suspicion alone are insufficient
- Courts will not permit belated attempts to supplement the prosecution’s case through judicially ordered re-investigation
Digital Evidence Claims Require Foundational Proof
- Requests for social media data, IP logs, or deleted files must be supported by preliminary evidence (e.g., screenshots, account details, timestamps)
- Absent such proof, such requests will be dismissed as impermissible fishing inquiries
- Cybercrime investigations must be initiated promptly; delays undermine the viability of digital evidence recovery
Trial Stage Matters: Timing Is Critical
- Applications for further investigation must be raised before the close of prosecution evidence
- Post-trial applications are viewed with extreme skepticism unless they reveal a fundamental breakdown in the investigation process
- The doctrine of finality in criminal trials limits judicial interference once the trial has progressed beyond the investigation phase
