The Chhattisgarh High Court recently dismissed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, wherein the petitioner sought directions for a fair investigation and consideration of his objection against false implication in an FIR. The Court held that no abuse of process was demonstrated, reinforcing that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) are not to be invoked lightly.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Paltan Verma, was named as an accused in FIR No. 107/2026 registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. The FIR alleged that on 08.03.2026, the deceased, Tularam Patel, a building contractor, was assaulted by a group of individuals, including the petitioner, while dropping off Pardeshnin Bai on his motorcycle. The assault, allegedly motivated by concerns over the deceased’s visits affecting the village environment, resulted in grievous injuries to the deceased’s head, leading to his death at the hospital.
Key Facts
- 08.03.2026: Incident occurred at approximately 10:40 pm in Village Gadadih. The deceased was allegedly assaulted by Kirtan Yadav, Samay Yadav, Ashish Yadav, Paltan Verma (petitioner), Rooplal Verma, Pawan Verma, Ramchand Verma, Lokesh Yadav, and other associates.
- 08.03.2026: FIR registered under Crime No. 107/2026 for offences involving wrongful restraint and assault.
- 11.03.2026: Petitioner’s son filed an objection application before the Superintendent of Police, Khairagarh, contending that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The application stated:
- The petitioner was merely a bystander at the scene, having gone to investigate a commotion in the village.
- Neither the petitioner nor his son witnessed the assault.
- The village Kotwar suggested informing the police, which they did by dialling 112.
- The petitioner had no role, participation, or prior knowledge of the incident and no enmity with the deceased.
- The petitioner sought deletion of his name from the FIR, alleging lack of cogent evidence or proper investigation.
Procedural History
- 08.03.2026: FIR registered against the accused persons.
- 11.03.2026: Objection application filed by the petitioner’s son before the Superintendent of Police (Annexure-P/2).
- 13.04.2026: Present petition (CRMP No. 1027 of 2026) filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, seeking:
- Consideration and disposal of the objection dated 11.03.2026.
- Directions for a fair and proper investigation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for:
- Issuance of directions to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the objection dated 11.03.2026.
- Conduct of a fair and proper investigation into the matter.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) empowers the High Court to intervene during the investigation stage to direct consideration of an objection application and ensure a fair investigation, absent a demonstrated abuse of process.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended:
- The petitioner was falsely implicated in the FIR without any lawful basis or evidence.
- On the date of the incident (08.03.2026), the petitioner was merely a bystander and had no role in the alleged assault.
- The petitioner’s son had filed an objection application (Annexure-P/2) on 11.03.2026, which remained undecided.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, to argue that fair investigation is a constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- The investigation was arbitrary and lacked fairness, warranting the Court’s intervention under Section 528 BNSS.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition, submitting:
- There is no obligation to dispose of an objection application during the course of an investigation.
- Issuing directions for consideration of such an application would be neither necessary nor appropriate at this stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 528 BNSS, 2023, which confers inherent powers on the High Court to intervene in cases of abuse of process or to prevent injustice. The Court observed:
"Section 528 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) is engrafted to allow the High Court to intervene in cases where there is a clear abuse of process or where it is necessary to prevent injustice."
However, the Court noted that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any abuse of process or manifest injustice in the ongoing investigation. The Court emphasised that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS are not to be invoked lightly and must be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances. The Court held:
"Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the case in hand, I am not inclined to use inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS."
The Court further clarified that the petitioner’s request for directions to consider the objection application and conduct a fair investigation did not meet the threshold for invoking Section 528 BNSS. The Court reiterated that the investigation process is primarily within the domain of the investigating agency, and judicial intervention at this stage would be premature absent clear evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the petition at the motion stage itself, holding that:
- No abuse of process or injustice was demonstrated to warrant intervention under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.
- The petitioner’s request for directions to consider the objection application and conduct a fair investigation was not sustainable.
- The petition was dismissed in limine, with no costs awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limits of Inherent Powers Under Section 528 BNSS
- The judgment reaffirms that Section 528 BNSS (akin to Section 482 CrPC) is not a tool for routine interference in ongoing investigations.
- Practitioners must demonstrate clear abuse of process or manifest injustice to seek the High Court’s intervention during the investigation stage.
- Mere allegations of false implication or lack of evidence without concrete proof of arbitrariness or mala fides are insufficient to invoke Section 528 BNSS.
Fair Investigation as a Constitutional Right
- While fair investigation is recognised as a constitutional right under Article 21, the Court clarified that this does not entitle accused persons to direct the investigation process.
- The judgment aligns with the precedent in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, but underscores that judicial intervention is exceptional, not automatic.
Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
- Objection Applications: Filing objections before investigating authorities is a preliminary step, but practitioners must be prepared for no immediate relief unless arbitrariness is evident.
- Evidence of Arbitrariness: To succeed in a petition under Section 528 BNSS, practitioners must substantiate claims of mala fides or procedural irregularities with documentary or testimonial evidence.
- Alternative Remedies: If the investigation is perceived as unfair, practitioners may explore filing a complaint before higher police authorities or approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC (or its BNSS equivalent) for directions.
This judgment serves as a cautionary note for practitioners, emphasising that inherent powers of the High Court are not a substitute for the investigation process and must be invoked only in rare and compelling circumstances.
