HAIDER ALIAS BABLU AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010172052026
2026:UHC:10113
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
C528/2102/2026
Haider Alias Bablu And Others
--Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel
for the applicants.
Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned
counsel for respondent no. 2.
2. The present application under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the “BNSS”), has been filed
by the applicants seeking quashing of
the charge-sheet dated 09.03.2026, the
summoning/cognizance order dated
12.05.2026, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate-II, Roorkee, District
Haridwar, in Criminal Case No. 77 of
2026, State v. Haider alias Bablu and
Others , as well as the entire proceedings
of the aforesaid criminal case, arising
out of FIR No. 75 of 2025, registered at
Police Station Kaliyar Sharif, District
Haridwar, for the offences punishable
under Sections 324(4), 351(3), 352 and
191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
“BNS”), pending before the Court of the
learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Roorkee,
District Haridwar.
3. It is contended on behalf of the
applicants that Tanveer, son of Mahir
Hussain, and Danish, nephew of
respondent no. 2, contested the election
for the post of Ward Member of Nagar
UKHC010172052026
2026:UHC:10113
Panchayat, Kaliyar Sharif, held in
January, 2025. Owing to the said
electoral rivalry, respondent no. 2 and
her family members allegedly attacked
the house of Tanveer and misbehaved
with the female members of his family.
Respondent no. 2 lodged FIR No. 75 of
2025 against 35 persons, including the
present applicants, on 26.02.2025.
However, the FIR lodged from the side of
the applicants came to be registered on
28.02.2025. Thereafter, the investigation
was initially conducted by the Sub-
Inspector concerned. Subsequently, the
investigation was transferred from Police
Station Kaliyar to Police Station
Gangnahar vide order dated 25.07.2025,
passed by the Superintendent of Police
(Rural), District Haridwar, with a
direction that the investigation be
conducted by the Senior Sub-Inspector
posted at Police Station Gangnahar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid
order, the investigation was undertaken
by Senior Sub-Inspector Ajay Shah, who
was subsequently promoted and posted
as Station House Officer, Police Station
Jhabrera, on 07.09.2025. It is further
submitted that, despite his transfer and
relief from Police Station Gangnahar,
Ajay Shah continued with the
investigation and ultimately submitted
the charge-sheet on 09.03.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants,
therefore, contends that once Ajay Shah
had been transferred and relieved from
Police Station Gangnahar, he ceased to
hold the post of Senior Sub-Inspector at
the said police station and,
consequently, was no longer competent
to continue with the investigation in
terms of the order dated 25.07.2025
passed by the Superintendent of Police
(Rural). It is submitted that, upon his
UKHC010172052026
2026:UHC:10113
transfer, the investigation ought to have
been entrusted to another police officer
holding the post of Senior Sub-Inspector
at Police Station Gangnahar.
Accordingly, the charge-sheet submitted
by him and the consequential
proceedings are liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 2 submits
that the applicants have nowhere
pleaded or demonstrated as to how they
have suffered any prejudice on account
of the investigation having been
continued by Ajay Shah after his
transfer and promotion. It is further
submitted that Ajay Shah, the concerned
Investigating Officer, has not even been
impleaded as a party to the present
application.
7. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.A.H.
Siguran v. Shankare Gowda alias
Shankara and Another , reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 126, particularly
paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof, which are
reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. However, this conclusion was not
enough for the High Court to quash the
proceeding. It is well-settled law that
even if investigation is not conducted
by authorized officer, the trial is not
vitiated unless a prejudice is shown.
9. In H.N. Rishbud v. State (UT of Delhi)
the question considered by this Court
was whether after the court takes
cognizance, trial can be held to be
vitiated merely on the ground that
investigation was invalid. Answering in
the negative, this Court held that if the
plea of invalidity of investigation is
raised at sufficiently early stage, the
court, instead of taking cognizance,
direct reinvestigation by competent
investigating officer. But, after
UKHC010172052026
2026:UHC:10113
cognizance is taken, the trial cannot be
quashed for invalidity of investigation."
8. On the strength of the aforesaid
judgment, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2 submits that the
charge-sheet has already been submitted
and cognizance has been taken by the
learned Magistrate. It is further
contended that the applicants have
failed to demonstrate any prejudice
having been caused to them on account
of the investigation having been
continued by the concerned Investigating
Officer after his transfer and promotion.
Accordingly, the present application is
liable to be dismissed.
9. Having considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the material available on record, this
Court finds that the principal grievance
raised by the applicants is that Ajay
Shah continued with the investigation
even after his transfer and promotion
from the post of Senior Sub-Inspector at
Police Station Gangnahar, contrary to
the directions contained in the order
dated 25.07.2025 passed by the
Superintendent of Police (Rural), District
Haridwar. However, the applicants have
neither specifically pleaded nor
demonstrated as to how the continuation
of the investigation by the said officer
has caused any prejudice to their case.
Mere irregularity in the conduct of
investigation, by itself, would not be
sufficient to vitiate the subsequent
proceedings in the absence of any
demonstrated prejudice, particularly
when the charge-sheet has already been
submitted and cognizance has been
taken by the competent court.
10. The principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.A.H.
Siguran v. Shankare Gowda alias
UKHC010172052026
2026:UHC:10113
Shankara and Another (supra) is
squarely relevant to the controversy
involved in the present case. In view of
the aforesaid legal position, this Court
does not find any ground warranting
interference in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
11. Accordingly, the present application
under Section 528 of the BNSS, being
devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
12. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
03-11-2026
SB
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c
, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE 29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.11.04 10:43:19 +05'30'