Judicial interference in investigations is impermissible absent clear proof of mala fides or gross illegality.

The petitioner married Rajeshwari Tiwari in 2006, with whom he has two surviving children.

He alleged that his wife entered into an illicit relationship with one Pawan Tripathi and subsequently left the matrimonial home.

Although a missing person report led to her recovery, she allegedly continued the relationship, and her current whereabouts are unknown to the petitioner.

The petitioner claims his wife executed an affidavit on August 27, 2025, stating she left voluntarily and transferred control of certain assets to him. However, the petitioner expressed apprehension that he might face false criminal charges regarding these financial transactions.

Dissatisfied with the police's issuance of a notice under Section 174 of the BNSS, the petitioner alleged the investigation was perfunctory, biased, and aimed at shielding a local police official.

He approached the High Court seeking a writ for a fair inquiry and the transfer of the investigation to a special agency.

Whether the respondent authorities failed to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, thereby warranting a court-directed inquiry or a transfer of the case to a special investigation agency.

The court's decision was governed by the procedural requirements of Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding police inquiries.

The court applied the established judicial principle that the High Court should not interfere with the investigative process of the police unless there is a demonstrable case of mala fide (bad faith) or gross illegality.

The court examined the petitioner’s claims of investigative bias and found them to be largely unsubstantiated.

It noted that the respondent authorities had already initiated the legal process by undertaking preliminary steps, including the issuance of notices under Section 174 of the BNSS.

The court observed that the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and that the petitioner’s grievances were founded on subjective apprehensions rather than objective, cogent material.

Connecting the facts to the rule of law, the court reasoned that because the authorities were acting in accordance with statutory procedures and no clear evidence of gross illegality or mala fide intent was produced, judicial intervention into the police’s executive function was inappropriate.

Consequently, the court declined to grant the relief for a special inquiry or transfer of investigation.

The petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.