Supreme Court: In a writ petition, challenging Madras High Court’s directions issued for completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheets within a fixed period, and expeditious disposal of pending trials, a Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., deemd the paragraphs 8 and 9 of the High Court’s order as “unwarranted and uncalled for” and directed for their deletion.
The Court held that a writ court cannot direct the investigating agency to file a charge-sheet or compel completion of investigation within a fixed time-frame irrespective of the material collected, as this forecloses the statutory discretion of the investigating officer. Directions to conclude criminal trials within a stipulated period, without regard to the stage of proceedings, amount to improper exercise of writ jurisdiction and may undermine the fairness of trial.
In the instant matter, the appellant had lodged a complaint dated 08-02-2025, followed by two further complaints dated 23-05-2025 and 21-06-2025. The common grievance in the latter two complaints was that “in gross abuse of power, false cases were being foisted on the appellant” by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, and that the investigation was being conducted in a premeditated manner to frame him.
Alleging that his complaints had not been acted upon, the appellant approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to take action on his complaints in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act, 2013 (the Act), and further forbearing the Respondent 3 from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner’s organization namely Savukku Media.
The Single Judge found that the appellant figured as an accused in 37 cases. Charge-sheets had already been filed in 24 cases and investigation was pending in 13 cases. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court directed the jurisdictional police to complete investigation in the 13 pending cases and file charge-sheets within four months, and further directed the trial courts to expedite the trials in the 24 cases and dispose of them within six months. Aggrieved by these directions, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Court noted that although the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that no material had been placed to show interference by the Commissioner of Police, the further directions issued by it were unwarranted.
The Court reiterated that “none can be put in a worse position for approaching the court of law and find himself in a position more disadvantageous than the position he was in, on the date he moved the court.” The Court expressed concern over the direction compelling the filing of charge-sheets and observed that such a command intruded into the exclusive domain of the investigating agency.
Relying on Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim, the Court held that it is “not viable for a writ court to order initiation of investigation since such a role lies in the domain of the executive.” The Court explained the scheme of criminal investigation under of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and emphasised that the formation of opinion whether to place the accused for trial must be taken by the officer in charge of the police station. Filing of a charge-sheet “necessarily has to be preceded by formation of a positive opinion” by the investigating officer that the materials warrant prosecution.
The Court cautioned that if a High Court directs that a charge-sheet must invariably be filed irrespective of the material collected, it would take away the discretion of the investigating officer and “he would be left with no other option but to proceed in the direction as required by the High Court under pain of threat of contempt.” The Court held that such directions, except in very extreme cases, were impermissible.
Similarly, the Court held that the direction to complete trials within six months without ascertaining the stage of trial could have far-reaching consequences and that “the concept of a fair trial could be rendered a casualty.”
The Court held that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the High Court’s order were “absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for” and directed their deletion. Any step taken by the investigating officer pursuant to paragraph 8 was declared to be of no effect, and the charge-sheets filed after the impugned order were set aside.
The Court directed that, in cases where investigation was pending or stood reopened, the investigating officers shall proceed on the basis of material collected or to be collected, and “form an opinion as to the necessity or otherwise of placing the appellant for trial” and thereafter file an appropriate report under Section 173 CrPC/Section 193 BNSS, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations. The trial courts were left free to proceed in accordance with law.
[A. Shankar v. Secretary to Government, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR with Mr. K. Gowtham Kumar, Ms. Kanishka Singh, Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma and Mr. A.P. Bal, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Mr. K.S. Badhrina, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
