Topic
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a complainant may invoke Section 193(9) BNSS to demand further investigation before charges are framed, rejecting the view that only the investigating agency can move such an application. The decision strengthens victim participation in ensuring a thorough probe at the pre-trial stage.
A Punjab-Haryana High Court judgment bars police from directing any further inquiry after a cancellation report unless a magistrate authorises it under Section 173(8) CrPC and Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. This limits police powers, ensuring judicial oversight of post-report investigations and protecting accused persons from unwarranted extensions of inquiry.
The Delhi High Court affirmed that a pregnancy of a girl under 18 cannot be terminated without the written consent of her guardian and that any such termination must be reported under the POCSO Act. This clarifies the dual pre-condition of guardian approval and statutory reporting for medical practitioners. The ruling binds doctors, hospitals and magistrates handling minor pregnancy cases.
Delhi High Court rules that police cannot conduct further investigation after charge-sheet without prior judicial approval under BNSS Section 193(9), safeguarding against arbitrary executive action. The ruling reinforces judicial oversight in criminal proceedings under the new code.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that seeking digital evidence after prosecution evidence has closed, without any documentary foundation, amounts to a fishing inquiry and cannot be permitted under Section 348 BNSS. This sets a critical boundary for prosecutors and complainants in POCSO and other serious cases, preventing speculative digital forensics requests that undermine finality of trial proceedings.
The J&K High Court set aside charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and RPC Sections 467, 468, 471, and 120-B, ruling that Article 21 requires a fair investigation to establish the custodial role of the accused before trial. The court emphasized that framing charges without probing the accused's tenure and involvement violates constitutional safeguards, reinforcing the need for a forensically grounded probe in criminal proceedings.
Calcutta High Court held that further investigation is permissible even after filing a chargesheet if political influence or gross investigative lapses-such as ignoring critical evidence or shielding accused-undermine justice. The ruling reinforces judicial oversight to ensure fair trials in sensitive cases like POCSO, setting a precedent for courts to intervene when state agencies fail victims.