The Madras High Court has reiterated that mere allegations, without concrete evidence, are insufficient to warrant the transfer of an investigation under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court dismissed a petition seeking to transfer the investigation of a sensitive unnatural death case, emphasizing that the trial court retains the power to invoke Section 358 BNSS if evidence emerges implicating additional accused during proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, S.Rukumani, is the mother of the deceased, Shivaraj, who died under suspicious circumstances on 20.03.2025. The petitioner alleged a long-standing matrimonial dispute between Shivaraj and his wife, Padmavathi, over property demands. She further claimed that Shivaraj was forcibly admitted to a de-addiction centre by his wife and son, leading to his eventual death.
Key Facts
- Matrimonial Dispute: Padmavathi allegedly demanded properties and had an eye on Shivaraj’s assets.
- Forced Admission: Shivaraj was admitted to a de-addiction centre against his will, with the petitioner alleging collusion between Padmavathi, her son, and two known persons.
- Habeas Corpus Petition: The petitioner filed HCP(MD).No.119 of 2025 on 29.01.2025, which was disposed of after Shivaraj stated he wished to leave the centre.
- Missing Person Complaint: Shivaraj went missing on 21.03.2025, and the petitioner lodged a complaint with Kodaikanal Police Station on 23.03.2025, which initially went unaddressed.
- Discovery of Body: On 25.03.2025, Shivaraj’s partially burnt body was discovered in a cottage, prompting an RDO enquiry under Section 193 BNSS.
- FIR Registration: The police registered Crime No.110 of 2025 on 26.03.2025 under Section 194 BNSS, later altered to Sections 103(1) and 238(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, based on a complaint by the Village Administrative Officer (VAO).
- Property Dispute: The petitioner had previously filed an application under the Senior Citizen Act to cancel a settlement deed favouring Padmavathi and her grandson, which was dismissed by the RDO on 27.11.2023 and upheld by the District Collector on 13.01.2024.
Procedural History
- 22.03.2025: Petitioner lodged a missing person complaint with Kodaikanal Police Station.
- 23.03.2025: Second complaint filed regarding Shivaraj’s disappearance.
- 24.03.2025: FIR registered as Crime No.106 of 2025 (man missing case).
- 25.03.2025: Shivaraj’s body discovered; RDO enquiry initiated.
- 26.03.2025: FIR registered as Crime No.110 of 2025 under Section 194 BNSS based on VAO’s complaint.
- 26.03.2025: Petitioner lodged another complaint implicating Padmavathi and her grandson.
- 01.04.2025: Petitioner sent representations to the State Home Secretary and Chief Minister’s Cell seeking transfer of investigation to CBCID.
- 31.07.2025: Charge sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kodaikanal (PRC.No.1 of 2026).
- 23.04.2025: Present Criminal Original Petition (Crl.OP(MD).No.8106 of 2025) filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking transfer of investigation.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the second respondent (Director General of Police) to withdraw and transfer the investigation in Crime No.110 of 2025 from the fourth respondent (Kodaikanal Police Station) to the fifth respondent (CBCID), alleging improper investigation and bias.
The Legal Issue
The primary question before the Court was whether Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to transfer an investigation based solely on allegations of improper investigation, without concrete evidence implicating additional accused, especially after the charge sheet has been filed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- Cited Amit Kumar and others v. Union of India and others (2025 SCC Online SC 631) to argue that the Court can transfer investigation if it lacks confidence in the investigating agency.
- Relied on K.Sukumari v. Superintendent of Police and others (2018 SCC Online Mad 13864) and G.Velayutha Nadar v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2014 SCC Online Mad 3145) to contend that the Court can intervene if the investigation appears farcical.
- Argued that the FIR in Crime No.110 of 2025 was registered at the instance of the VAO, not the petitioner, indicating bias.
- Contended that the police failed to investigate the role of Padmavathi and her grandson despite repeated representations.
- Highlighted that the charge sheet implicated only servants of the deceased, suggesting a cover-up.
For the Respondents
- Submitted that the investigation was conducted impartially, with call details and tower locations used to identify the accused.
- Argued that the petitioner’s allegations against Padmavathi and her grandson were investigated but found unsubstantiated.
- Pointed out that the petitioner had a property dispute with Padmavathi and her grandson, as evidenced by her failed application under the Senior Citizen Act.
- Contended that the petitioner’s attempt to implicate Padmavathi and her grandson was motivated by the property dispute, not genuine concerns about the investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 528 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to transfer investigations if it deems necessary for justice. However, the Court emphasized that such powers must be exercised judiciously and not merely based on allegations without evidence.
"The primary contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper manner and the petitioner's allegation as against her daughter-in-law and grandson have not been properly investigated by the fourth respondent police and therefore, he seeks transfer of investigation."
The Court noted that the petitioner’s complaints lacked concrete evidence to implicate Padmavathi and her grandson. It observed that the petitioner’s grievances stemmed from a property dispute, as evidenced by her failed attempts to cancel the settlement deed under the Senior Citizen Act.
"It is clear that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the F.I.R was registered at the instance of the V.A.O. On 25.03.2025 in Crime No.110 of 2025 was registered under Section 194 of BNSS. Later, it has been altered under Section 103(1) and 238(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023."
The Court further held that the charge sheet had already been filed, and no material was placed on record to justify transferring the investigation. It reiterated that the trial court retains the power to invoke Section 358 BNSS (equivalent to Section 319 CrPC) if evidence emerges during trial implicating additional accused.
"During trial, if the evidence before the Court reflects the involvement of any other person in the crime, the Court is always at liberty to invoke Section 358 BNSS (319 of Cr.P.C). The Court has got ample powers to proceed against such persons."
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition (Crl.OP(MD).No.8106 of 2025), holding that the petitioner’s allegations against Padmavathi and her grandson were unsubstantiated. The Court clarified that the trial court could invoke Section 358 BNSS if evidence emerges during proceedings. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mere Allegations Are Insufficient for Transfer of Investigation
- Practitioners must ensure that petitions under Section 528 BNSS are supported by concrete evidence, not just allegations.
- Courts are unlikely to interfere with investigations post-charge sheet unless material discrepancies or bias are proven.
Trial Court Retains Power to Implicate Additional Accused
- Section 358 BNSS provides a remedy if evidence surfaces during trial implicating additional accused, reducing the need for pre-trial intervention.
- Petitioners should focus on presenting evidence during trial rather than seeking premature transfer of investigation.
Property Disputes Can Cloud Criminal Proceedings
- Courts are wary of allowing criminal proceedings to be weaponized in property disputes.
- Allegations rooted in civil disputes (e.g., Senior Citizen Act applications) may weaken the credibility of criminal complaints.
