Introduction
In a strongly worded order, the Bombay High Court’s Kolhapur Bench has transferred the investigation into a POCSO case to the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), directing a fresh, de novo probe after finding that the original investigating officer had failed to maintain even a basic case diary and had disregarded core protections under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The order is a pointed reminder of the standards expected of investigating agencies in cases involving child victims, and of the constitutional courts’ power to order reinvestigation where the original probe is found to be fundamentally unreliable.
Background Facts
The petition was filed in May 2026 seeking reinvestigation or a de novo investigation into FIR No. 317 of 2025, registered at Khed Police Station, District Ratnagiri, for offences under Sections 64(2)(i), 65(1), 74, and 351(3) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 4, 8, and 17 of the POCSO Act. A charge-sheet had already been filed in Special Case No. 42 of 2025 before the Special Court at Khed.
The petitioner’s daughter was a student at a Gurukul where the alleged incident took place. The petitioner contended that the investigation had been conducted in an “utmost undesirable manner,” alleging that the investigating officer lacked even basic knowledge of proper investigative procedure. Specific grievances included the disclosure of the victim’s name, address, and mobile number in the case papers — in direct violation of the confidentiality mandated by the POCSO Act — the omission of relevant POCSO provisions while filing the charge-sheet, and the recording of the victim’s statement at the police station itself, rather than in the manner contemplated by law for child victims.
The Court’s Scrutiny of the Case Diary
Given the seriousness of these allegations, the Court directed the investigating officer to appear in person with the case diary. What the Court found was, in its own words, “shocking.” The case diary — required to be maintained under Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) — did not exist in any recognisable form. The investigating officer produced only loose sheets, stating that this was how she maintained the diary.
The Court then directed the Superintendent of Police, Ratnagiri, to appear personally. When he did, he tendered a set of documents now bound together with black tape. On examination, the Court found that this was the same material previously furnished on 7 July 2026, now merely pasted into a bound volume — a bundling exercise the Court held did not amount to a case diary at all, particularly since the handwriting across the papers appeared to be uniform and written on a single day.
The Legal Framework on Case Diaries
The Court set out Section 192 of the BNS (analogous to Section 172 Cr.P.C.), which requires a police officer to enter proceedings day by day in a diary recording the time information was received, when the investigation began and ended, places visited, and the circumstances ascertained — with witness statements to be inserted into the diary, which must be a duly paginated volume.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, which in turn cited Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, for the proposition that the purpose of the case diary is to ensure fairness and transparency in investigation, and that a failure to maintain it accurately undermines the accused’s right to a fair investigation — requiring courts to actively scrutinise the record rather than accept the prosecution’s version at face value.
The Superintendent’s Response and the Court’s Concerns
The Superintendent of Police informed the Court that show-cause notices had been issued against the investigating officer and that the investigation would now be handed to a senior woman Police Inspector, since no woman officer of IPS rank was available. The Court found even this explanation unsatisfactory and “flabbergasting,” particularly noting that more than eight months had already elapsed since the FIR was registered on 16 October 2025 — time that had been effectively wasted due to the shoddy manner in which the investigation had been conducted, given that two FIRs had been lodged against the same accused.
Legal Basis for Transfer of Investigation
The Court extensively discussed the principles governing transfer of investigation to an independent agency, drawing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160, which in turn referred to Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, and K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480. These decisions establish that the power to transfer an investigation to an agency such as the CBI or CID must be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases — where it is necessary to do justice, to instil public confidence, or where the existing investigation is found to be tainted, biased, or otherwise lacking credibility.
The Court also relied on Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, for the settled principle that constitutional courts have jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution to direct further investigation, fresh investigation, de novo investigation, or reinvestigation — these being treated as functionally synonymous — and that the stage at which the case stands is not by itself a bar to exercising this power where the interests of justice so demand.
The Court’s Conclusion
Applying these principles, the Court held that this was a fit case for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. While reiterating that the power to transfer an investigation must be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of course, the Court found that the heinous nature of the offence, combined with the serious and repeated lapses on the part of the investigating officer, left it with no option but to allow the petition and direct transfer of the investigation to an independent agency.
The Order
The Court passed the following directions:
- The investigation into FIR No. 317 of 2025 was transferred to the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Maharashtra.
- The investigation is to be conducted de novo by the State CID.
- An officer of the rank of Additional Director General of Police in the State CID is to personally oversee the matter.
- Considering the serious lapses noted both in the Court’s earlier order of 7 July 2026 and in the present order, the matter was listed for further consideration on 21 July 2026.
- The Superintendent of Police, Ratnagiri, was directed to forthwith forward all case papers to the State CID and ensure the new agency has access to the complete record.
Case Details: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur | Criminal Writ Petition No. 404 of 2026 Coram: Justice Vrushali V. Joshi and Justice Sandesh D. Patil | Order dated 13.07.2026
Click HERE for full JUDGMENT
Lawcutor 