In a significant ruling reinforcing the well-settled principles governing police investigation and judicial oversight, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, which directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to take on record documentary evidence produced by the accused and investigate the matter accordingly.
The order, passed on 1st April 2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh in Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 11925 of 2026, highlights the limited role of a Magistrate during the stage of investigation under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Background of the Case
The matter arises out of Case Crime No. 613 of 2025 registered at Meerut, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), 123, and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Smt. Sona Jain, the first informant, is the applicant before the High Court.
During the course of investigation, one of the accused (opposite party no. 3) filed an application before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Meerut. On 19th February 2026, the Magistrate passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to:
- Take the documentary evidence produced by the accused on record, and
- Investigate the matter in light of the said evidence.
Aggrieved by this order, Smt. Sona Jain approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash the Magistrate’s order.
Arguments Advanced
On behalf of the Applicant (First Informant):
Led by Senior Advocate Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, assisted by Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, the counsel argued that the Magistrate’s order was completely contrary to settled law. Relying heavily on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, it was contended that:
- A Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation being carried out by the police.
- The Magistrate’s role is limited to monitoring the investigation.
- Only if the Magistrate records a clear satisfaction that the investigation is not being conducted properly can he direct the Officer-in-Charge to conduct a proper investigation.
- The accused has no right to move any application before the Magistrate at the pre-cognizance stage.
- The impugned order was passed without summoning the case diary and without recording any satisfaction regarding faulty investigation.
On behalf of the State:
The learned counsel for the State opposed the application but made a crucial admission. He conceded that the Magistrate had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the faulty nature of the investigation and had also not summoned the case diary before passing the order dated 19.02.2026.
Court’s Observation & Order
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the matter “requires consideration”. The Court issued notice to opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4, returnable at an early date, and directed them to file counter affidavits within four weeks.
In the interim, the High Court passed a protective order:
“Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the order dated 19.02.2026 and its consequences, shall remain stayed against the applicant.”
However, the Court clarified that the investigation of the case has not been stayed and shall continue in accordance with law.
Key Legal Principle Reaffirmed
This order reiterates the delicate balance between the executive (police) and the judiciary in criminal investigations. The Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra) had categorically held that Magistrates must not act as “investigating officers” or direct the police on how to investigate. The judgment serves as a timely reminder that any judicial intervention at the investigation stage must be exercised with great caution and only after due satisfaction based on the case diary.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Sona Jain vs. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 11925 of 2026
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Date of Order: 01 April 2026
Underlying FIR: Case Crime No. 613 of 2025, P.S. – (not mentioned), Meerut
Sections: 115(2), 351(3), 61(2), 123, 103(1) BNS
Counsel for the Applicant: Pulkit Kumar Srivastava Vishesh Rajvanshi
Counsel for the State: G.A. (Sri Mohd. Afzal appeared)
Lawcutor 