Inherent power under Section 528 BNSS cannot be invoked to direct police to decide objections during investigation.

On March 8, 2026, the deceased, Tularam Patel, was allegedly wrongfully restrained and assaulted by the petitioner and several others in village Gadadih, resulting in his death from head injuries.

Consequently, FIR No. 107/2026 was registered at Police Station Khairagarh for the alleged offence.

The petitioner’s son submitted an objection to the Superintendent of Police on March 11, 2026, asserting that the petitioner was a mere bystander who had actually called the police (112) and was being falsely implicated without evidence or motive.

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking a direction for the authorities to decide his representation and conduct a fair investigation.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent power to direct respondent authorities to decide a representation/objection filed by an accused during an ongoing investigation.

2. Whether the circumstances of the case justify judicial intervention in the investigation process under the inherent powers of the Court.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC), which empowers the High Court to intervene to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice.

The precedent of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254, which mandates that a fair investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court evaluated the petitioner's prayer for a directed disposal of his representation against the backdrop of the ongoing murder investigation.

It noted that the inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS are extraordinary and intended only for cases involving a clear abuse of process or to prevent manifest injustice.

The Court observed that investigating authorities are not under a legal obligation to formally dispose of such evidentiary objections or "innocence" representations during the course of an active investigation.

Upon perusing the documents, the Court found that the facts and circumstances did not warrant an exercise of inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the statutory duties of the police at this stage.

The Court found no necessity or appropriateness in directing the disposal of the petitioner’s representation while the investigation was underway.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed at the motion stage.