The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that writ petitions under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to compel time-bound investigations when statutory remedies before the Magistrate remain available. This judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts must refrain from interfering in police investigations unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Surkeet, filed a writ petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking directions to the State of Haryana and its officials to conduct a fair, impartial, and time-bound investigation into the death of her father. The death occurred following a surgical procedure at Metro Hospital, respondent No.4, allegedly due to medical negligence. A Daily Diary Report (DDR No.0026) was registered on 27.03.2025 at Police Station Civil Line, Jind, but no FIR was filed against the hospital doctor or staff.
Key Facts
- The petitioner’s father underwent surgery at Metro Hospital on or about 15.03.2025
- He died on 26.03.2025; post-mortem report and medical records indicated complications arising from alleged surgical negligence
- DDR No.0026 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, Jind on 27.03.2025
- The petitioner submitted a representation dated 03.02.2026 (Annexure P-5) to the Superintendent of Police, Jind, urging investigation and FIR registration
- No action was taken on the representation within a reasonable time
- No application was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS
Procedural History
- 26.03.2025: Death of petitioner’s father
- 27.03.2025: DDR No.0026 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Jind
- 03.02.2026: Petitioner submitted representation to Superintendent of Police, Jind
- 17.03.2026: Writ petition (CRM-M-14591-2026) filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the medical evidence clearly indicated negligence by the hospital staff, and the failure to register an FIR despite the DDR amounted to a denial of justice. She argued that the State’s inaction violated her right to life and fair investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution. She sought a direction to register an FIR and complete the investigation within a fixed timeframe.
For the Respondents
The State did not file a written reply, but the Court noted the absence of any application filed before the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, which is the prescribed statutory remedy.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A direction to respondents No.2 and 3 (State and Police authorities) to conduct a fair, impartial, transparent, and time-bound investigation
- A direction to register an FIR against the official(s) of respondent No.4 (Metro Hospital)
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, under Section 528 BNSS, can issue directions for a time-bound investigation and mandatory FIR registration when the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available before the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the constitutional right to life and fair investigation under Article 21. He argued that the delay in registering an FIR and the lack of progress in the DDR investigation amounted to a violation of procedural due process. He contended that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS should be invoked to prevent abuse of power and ensure accountability, especially where medical negligence is evident.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not file a written submission. However, the Court observed that the petitioner had not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, which explicitly empowers the Magistrate to order police investigation, monitor progress, or direct FIR registration. The Court noted that this statutory remedy was available and had not been exhausted.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the settled legal position established by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409, which held that Magistrates possess broad powers under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS) to direct police investigations and monitor their progress. The Court emphasized that the High Court must not routinely entertain writ petitions seeking FIR registration or investigation oversight when such remedies exist before the Magistrate.
"The Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition... simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police."
The Court further cited Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhange (2016) 6 SCC 277 and M. Subramanian v. S. Janaki (2020) 16 SCC 728, reiterating that the existence of an alternative remedy is a strong ground for non-interference by the High Court, even if not an absolute bar.
The Court observed that while Section 528 BNSS grants inherent powers to issue directions for proper investigation, it does not empower the High Court to dictate timelines or interfere with the investigative process. Such interference, the Court held, risks prejudicing the independence of the investigating agency and undermines the statutory scheme.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had not filed any application under Section 175(3) BNSS, which is the precise provision designed to address such grievances. The failure to exhaust this remedy rendered the petition premature and legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy available under Section 175(3) BNSS and that the High Court cannot issue directions for a time-bound investigation or compel FIR registration in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternative Remedy Before Magistrate Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must file an application under Section 175(3) BNSS before approaching the High Court for FIR registration or investigation oversight
- Failure to do so will result in dismissal of writ petitions under Section 528 BNSS
- The Magistrate’s powers under Section 175(3) are comprehensive and include monitoring, directing, and even initiating investigation
High Court Will Not Act as Investigative Supervisor
- Courts cannot impose deadlines for investigation completion, even if delays are evident
- Directions to complete investigations within fixed timeframes are beyond judicial competence and risk compromising procedural fairness
- Judicial restraint is required to preserve the autonomy of investigative agencies
Medical Negligence Does Not Bypass Statutory Procedure
- Even in cases of apparent medical negligence, the path to criminal prosecution must follow statutory channels
- Medical records alone do not justify bypassing the Magistrate’s jurisdiction
- Writ petitions cannot substitute for the prescribed criminal procedure
