Court emphasizes that a charge-sheet submission does not bar the exercise of powers under Article 226, but insufficient grounds for intervention led to dismissal of the writ petition.

Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :

Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that there has been no investigation in connection with Tarakeswar Police Station case no. 163/2025 dated 06.05.2025 under Sections 115 (2)/117(2)/3(5)/329(4)/351(3)/352 of the BNS. Petitioner complains that neither the petitioner nor the victim was examined nor the medical documents were collected in course of the investigation. On the other hand a notice was served upon the petitioner when he was 90 KMs away and the Section 3 5(3) of the BNSS notice reflected that a case has been registered against him being Tarakeswar Police Station case no. 186/2025 dated 19.05.2025 under Sections 3 29(4)/74/115(2)/351(2)/352 of BNS. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he has documents in his custody to substantiate that the investigating officer wanted bribe from him and in spite of informing the Superior Officer of police no steps have been taken and he has only been served with an intimation regarding the report being filed before the jurisdictional Court which is not clear as to whether a charge-sheet or a final report has been filed before the jurisdictional Court.

State has submitted two case diaries of both the cases being Tarakeswar Police Station case no. 163/2025 dated 06.05.2025 wherefrom it reflects that on conclusion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted under the relevant provisions of BNS and the charge-sheet reflects that the prosecution has relied upon eight witnesses including the doctor namely, Dr. Subhadeep Kandar. The case diary also reflects that injury reports were collected by the investigating officer of the case, which in fact, names the accused persons. The case diary also reflects regarding the co-witnesses which have been examined including the petitioner and the victim (his wife).

Petitioner’s subsequent grievance is in respect of Tarakeswar Police Station case no. 186/2025 dated 19.05.2025 wherein the police authorities on conclusion of investigation have submitted charge-sheet. Petitioner claims that he was at the relevant point of time on the said date so mentioned in the complaint, at a distance of 90 KMs away from the place of occurrence and has been falsely implicated in connection with the instant case. The prayers are advanced for transfer of the purported investigation. On specific query learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the transfer prayed for is in respect of the investigation being Tarakeswar Police Station case no. 186/2025 dated 19.05.2025. The further prayer of the petitioner is in respect of the representation made to the Superintendent of Police who did not take any action in spite of informing regarding the conduct of the investigating officer who allegedly demanded bribe from the present petitioner.

In order to substantiate his argument learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anant Thanur Karmuse –Vs. – State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2023) 5 SCC 802. Attention of the Court was drawn to paragraphs 42 and 48 which read as follows:

“42. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Dharam Pal [ Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana , (2016) 4 SCC 160 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 259] and Bharati Tamang [ Bharati Tamang v. Union of India , (2013) 15 SCC 578 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 566] and to do the complete justice and in furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial, the constitutional courts may order further investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation even after the charge-sheet is filed and the charges are framed. If the submission on behalf of the accused and even as observed by the High Court that once the charge-sheet is filed and the charges are framed, there may not be any order for further investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation is accepted, in that case, the accused may see to it that the charges are framed to avoid any fair investigation/fair trial. It would lead to travesty of justice.

48. Be that as it may, ev