Investigation Not Biased Merely Because IO Is Subordinate To Complainant; Re-Investigation Can't Be Ordered After Cognizance Unless Miscarriage Of Justice Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana HC

"It is too far fetched to be accepted that a subordinate officer would always be biased in investigating a complaint filed by his superior, and would act in breach of his responsibility to be fair and impartial. Such a view would be outlandish amounting to drawing a presumption against the professional ethics and duties every officer has to stand by." Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a criminal investigation cannot be termed biased or vitiated merely because the investigating officer is subordinate to the complainant.

A bench of Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, in a judgment dated July 1, 2026, observed that there is no legislative or statutory bar preventing a subordinate officer from investigating a complaint filed by a superior, and such a relationship does not automatically lead to an inference of a one-sided or lopsided inquiry.

The petitioner, Sunder Sham Arora, a former Punjab minister, was booked under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly offering a bribe of ₹1 crore to an Assistant Inspector General (AIG) of the Vigilance Bureau to save himself from a pending case. The FIR was registered on October 15, 2022, after a trap was allegedly laid where the petitioner was caught red-handed with ₹50 lakh. After the trial court took cognizance and framed charges, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking a de novo investigation by an independent agency.

The primary question before the court was whether an investigation conducted by a police officer subordinate to the complainant is inherently biased, thereby vitiating the trial. The court was also called upon to determine if a prayer for re-investigation could be entertained at a belated stage after the trial court had already taken cognizance of the offence and examined several prosecution witnesses.

Objection To Investigation At Belated Stage Deemed An Afterthought

The Court noted that the petitioner raised the plea of biased investigation only through an additional affidavit during the pendency of the present petition, despite having the relevant documents much earlier. The Bench observed that the identity of the complainant and the investigating officer was disclosed in the FIR and the challan, yet the petitioner did not seek re-investigation during the discharge proceedings before the trial court.

The Bench remarked that the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the petitioner in July 2023, but no prayer for re-investigation was made at that time. Justice Dahiya held that these facts lead to an "inescapable conclusion" that the prayer for re-investigation was merely an afterthought raised at a belated stage when the trial was already underway and six witnesses had been examined.

Invalidity Of Investigation Not A Ground To Quash Trial After Cognizance

Referring to the settled legal position, the Court emphasized that an invalid investigation is not a ground to order re-investigation once cognizance has been taken, unless a miscarriage of justice is established. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi (1954) to reiterate that an illegality in investigation does not affect the competence or jurisdiction of the court for trial.

The Court observed that even if certain lapses or flaws in the investigation exist, they do not automatically result in a miscarriage of justice. The Bench noted that the material collected, including the recovery of currency notes in the presence of witnesses, indicated a probable cause for prosecution. It is for the trial court to determine if the ingredients of the offence are established beyond reasonable doubt despite any alleged lapses.

"Invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby."

Absence Of Statutory Bar Against Subordinate Officers Conducting Investigation

Addressing the petitioner’s core argument regarding inherent bias, the Court held that a subordinate officer is not precluded by law from investigating a complaint filed by a superior. The Bench observed that the legislature has not deemed it appropriate to proscribe such an arrangement under the Cr.P.C. Justice Dahiya noted that drawing a presumption of bias against an officer based solely on their professional rank would be "outlandish."

The Court further stated that assumptions cannot replace hard facts, and in the absence of tangible material establishing personal bias or wrongdoing, there is no reason to believe that an officer would fail to perform their professional duties. The Bench clarified that the professional ethics and duties every officer must stand by should not be disregarded based on mere apprehensions of the accused.

"The legislature has deemed it appropriate not to proscribe an investigating officer from investigating his/her superior’s complaint under the Cr.P.C., and this Court finds no justification to hold otherwise."

Reliance On Constitution Bench Ruling In Mukesh Singh Case

The High Court placed heavy reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) (2020), which dealt with whether an investigation by the informant themselves is biased. The Supreme Court had held that in the absence of a specific bar in the Cr.P.C., the credibility of the informant cannot be doubted solely because they investigated the case.

Justice Dahiya observed that if the informant themselves can investigate a case without an inherent presumption of bias, the argument that a subordinate officer would be biased is even less tenable. The Court held that the question of bias must be decided on the facts of each case and cannot be a subject of "universal generalisation." Since the petitioner failed to prove any specific prejudice, the investigation could not be termed vitiated.

The Court concluded that the petitioner had not established any miscarriage of justice or tangible bias. Finding no merit in the prayer for de novo investigation, the High Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the petition and would have no bearing on the merits of the pending trial.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026