Interim Orders Restraining Filing of Investigation Reports Under Section 193(3) BNSS Are Impermissible and Unjustified.

The appellant (complainant) challenged an interim order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Allahabad High Court, which stayed the filing of a police report (charge-sheet) under Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The dispute involves the "Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India," a society possessing extensive freehold lands.

Two rival groups claim management of the society, leading to numerous FIRs and civil litigations across several states.

It was alleged that the accused (including Respondent No. 2) used forged documents to sell society land to M/s Singhvahini Infraprojects Private Limited.

The High Court, while allowing the investigation to continue, restrained the submission of the final police report based on the premise that the matter was primarily a civil dispute.

1. Whether a High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, is justified in restraining the investigating agency from filing a charge-sheet/police report during the pendency of a writ petition.

2. Whether the facts of the present case, involving systemic land fraud across multiple jurisdictions, warrant the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

The court primarily applied Section 193(3) of the BNSS regarding the submission of investigation reports.

It relied on the precedent set in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which held that blanket interim orders staying investigations or preventing the filing of charge-sheets are generally unsustainable as they impede statutory duties.

The court also distinguished Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra, clarifying that the power to quash an FIR under Article 226 does not inherently necessitate a stay on filing a charge-sheet.

Furthermore, it invoked the principles from Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana to justify the appointment of an SIT in cases involving organised land scams and fraudulent titles.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court misapplied the ratio of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni, as that case dealt with the transition of jurisdiction from Article 226 to Section 482 CrPC (or Section 528 BNSS) once cognizance is taken, rather than providing a mandate to stay charge-sheets.

The Court found that the High Court’s intervention was unjustified because the society’s properties were being repeatedly alienated through alleged forgery despite ongoing litigations.

By applying Neeharika Infrastructure, the Court reasoned that the police’s statutory right to investigate and report findings should not be obstructed.

Given the complexity of the internal management dispute and the "land mafia" nature of the allegations involving multiple FIRs in different states, the Court determined that an unimpaired investigation by a specialized body was necessary to protect the society's assets.

The Court ordered the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to constitute an SIT, including the Registrar of Societies, to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the alienation of the society’s lands within three months.

While no coercive action is to be taken against Respondent No. 2 until the SIT report is submitted, all parties are directed to cooperate with the investigation.

The SIT report is to be placed before the High Court for final adjudication of the pending writ petition.