The Madras High Court, in a crucial judgment, dismissed Writ Petition No. 798 of 2025, holding that petitioners aggrieved by improper or unfair investigations should first approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, rather than seeking relief directly through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The decision, delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed, reinforces the legal procedure for ensuring accountability in criminal investigations and aims to prevent undue burden on the judiciary.
Case Background
The petitioner, G. Saravanan, a regular participant in Gram Sabha meetings of the Periyeri Village Panchayat in Salem District, filed the writ petition alleging large-scale misappropriation of funds allocated for public development. The petition highlighted several instances of financial irregularities during the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24. It specifically pointed out unauthorized payments amounting to over ₹34 lakh made to entities connected with village authorities, such as Sai Electricals Gowsika, a firm linked to Mrs. Gowsika Navarathinaraj, the wife of Panchayat Vice President, Mr. Praveenkumar.
Despite submitting representations dated July 21, 2024, and October 3, 2024, to various authorities, including the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption), the petitioner claimed no effective action had been taken to investigate the alleged corruption. As a result, Saravanan sought the intervention of the High Court to direct the authorities to conduct a fair and proper investigation.
Key Legal Issues
The central question before the Court was whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be maintained when Section 175(3) of BNSS provides a statutory mechanism for addressing grievances related to unfair investigations. The petitioner argued that since the authorities had failed to act on his complaints, invoking the High Court’s writ jurisdiction was justified to protect the principles of fair investigation as enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
In response, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr. A. Gopinath contended that the petitioner had bypassed the prescribed legal remedy under BNSS. He argued that Section 175(3) empowers a Magistrate to direct and monitor investigations if complaints of inadequate or biased investigation arise, making the present writ petition unnecessary.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Shamim Ahmed, after considering the submissions and reviewing legal precedents, held that the High Court should not ordinarily entertain writ petitions for ensuring proper investigation when alternative remedies exist under statutory frameworks.
The Court made several significant observations:
“Fair and proper investigation is the backbone of the rule of law. Any investigation into crime must be conducted fairly and effectively, free from influence or bias, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the remedy for ensuring such fair investigation lies with the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of BNSS, not directly through the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, and Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya v. State of Gujarat, which emphasized that aggrieved parties must first seek redress through the Magistrate before approaching the High Court.
Alternative Remedy Under Section 175(3) of BNSS
Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, allows a Magistrate to order an investigation if the police fail to perform their duties effectively or if the investigation is found lacking. The Magistrate has the authority to issue directions for a fair investigation and even recommend the replacement of the investigating officer, if necessary. The Court noted that this provision provides a comprehensive remedy, making it unnecessary to invoke writ jurisdiction in most cases.
Key Quotes from the Judgment
– On Fair Investigation: “The essence of fair investigation is ensuring that those who have committed a crime are held accountable, and those who have not are not wrongly prosecuted. This is a fundamental aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.”
– On Judicial Overreach: “The High Court should discourage the practice of entertaining writ petitions for ensuring proper investigation when statutory remedies exist. Flooding the courts with such petitions would paralyze the judiciary’s functioning.”
Final Ruling
The Court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue the available legal remedy under BNSS. It held:
“In view of the statutory remedy available under Section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023, this writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned for appropriate orders regarding a fair and proper investigation.”
