Uttarakhand HC Lets Ward-Election Rivalry Case Proceed After Accused Show No Prejudice From Transferred Officer’s Probe

In brief

The question

1. Whether an investigation continued by an officer after his transfer and promotion, contrary to the order assigning the investigation to a designated officer, warranted quashing the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings.

The court held

The Court held that no ground for exercising its inherent jurisdiction had been established.

It also directed

It dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS as devoid of merit and disposed of any pending applications.

01Facts

The applicants sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of the charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order, and criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered against them for offences under Sections 324(4), 351(3), 352 and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 2

They contended that, after the investigation had been assigned to the Senior Sub-Inspector at Police Station Gangnahar, Investigating Officer Ajay Shah continued it and filed the charge-sheet despite being transferred and promoted to another post.

¶ 3–5

Respondent no. 2 opposed the application, arguing that no prejudice had been shown and relying on the fact that cognizance had already been taken.

¶ 6–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether an investigation continued by an officer after his transfer and promotion, contrary to the order assigning the investigation to a designated officer, warranted quashing the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings.

¶ 5, 9

ii.2. Whether, after cognizance has been taken, an alleged irregularity in the investigation justifies quashing proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice to the accused.

¶ 7–10

03Law Applied

Section 528 of the BNSS confers inherent jurisdiction, but does not require interference merely because an investigation is alleged to be irregular.

In R.A.H. Siguran v. Shankare Gowda alias Shankara and Another, (2017) 16 SCC 126, the Supreme Court held that an investigation by an unauthorised officer does not vitiate the trial unless prejudice is shown; where an invalidity is raised early, reinvestigation by a competent officer may be directed, but after cognizance the trial cannot be quashed merely on that ground.

¶ 7

The judgment also refers to H.N. Rishbud v. State (UT of Delhi) for that principle.

¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 324 Section 351 Section 352 Section 191

04Reasoning

The Court treated the applicants’ complaint—that Ajay Shah continued the investigation after transfer and promotion—as an alleged irregularity in the investigation.

¶ 9

The applicants neither specifically pleaded nor demonstrated how that conduct prejudiced their case.

Because the charge-sheet had been filed and cognizance taken, the principle in R.A.H. Siguran applied: the alleged irregularity, without demonstrated prejudice, did not justify quashing the proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

¶ 9–10