Topic
Police investigation in Indian law refers to the procedural steps authorities take to gather evidence in cognizable offenses under the CrPC and BNSS, subject to judicial oversight.
The Supreme Court ruled that while police can file an FIR for alleged PCPNDT violations, the investigation must be conducted exclusively by the Act’s Appropriate Authority. Magistrates therefore cannot take cognizance of a police-prepared charge-sheet, curbing police powers in sex-selection cases.
Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds the Lalita Kumari principle under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permitting police to conduct a preliminary inquiry before FIR registration where no cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed. The ruling clarifies the scope of judicial review over police compliance reports in criminal investigations.
Allahabad High Court reinforces the right to life and liberty under Article 21 by directing police protection for a married couple facing harassment, while mandating cooperation in the investigation under Section 87 BNSS. The court barred coercive action until statements are recorded, balancing individual rights with procedural fairness.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Sitapur police to conclude the 14-month-old FIR investigation without further delay, affirming that prolonged inaction violates the right to speedy justice under Article 21. Petitioners now have an explicit liberty to approach the Magistrate for relief under Sakiri Vasu if the probe remains stalled, reinforcing judicial oversight over investigative apathy.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to compel police to file a charge sheet before investigation concludes, safeguarding the investigative autonomy of law enforcement. While denying the petitioner’s demand for immediate action, the court ordered expedited probe completion within 60-75 days, reinforcing that judicial oversight must not substitute procedural diligence with premature intervention.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a Magistrate need not conduct a detailed inquiry under Section 156(3) CrPC; mere prima facie evidence of forgery in loan documents and affidavits is sufficient to direct police investigation. This reinforces judicial discretion at the pre-cognizance stage, ensuring swifter access to justice for complainants.
Calcutta High Court rules that under Section 175(3) BNSS, magistrates cannot delegate preliminary inquiry to police and must personally assess sufficient grounds for investigation. The judgment sets aside three orders for procedural non-compliance, reinforcing judicial oversight in FIR registration.
Madras High Court holds that habeas corpus is not maintainable when a missing person case is registered and investigation is underway, but directs police to expedite probe.