You have several remedies to consider, but they serve different purposes: challenging the prosecution, seeking further investigation, pursuing your own complaint, and preserving electronic evidence. The pending quashing petition does not automatically prevent you from seeking discharge before the trial court, nor does it automatically dispose of your separate complaint under Section 223 BNSS. The precise procedural position will depend on the stage of the police case, the orders already passed by the High Court, and the status of your complaint.
1. Can you file a writ petition under Article 226 for fair investigation?
Yes, you can request the High Court to intervene, but such relief is exceptional and not automatic. You would need to demonstrate specific material showing that the investigation was unfair, selective or deliberately ignored relevant evidence—not merely that the police reached a conclusion adverse to you.
Your proposed grounds may include:
-
The police allegedly closed your counter-complaint as false or baseless without properly examining your evidence.
-
You say approximately 15 police personnel were present at the occurrence, yet relevant evidence may not have been collected.
-
The complainant allegedly referred to an earlier encounter without providing its date and time.
-
Your representations to senior police officers and your request for the action-taken report remain unresolved.
Preserve the acknowledgements of your representations, the RTI application and replies, the closure report if obtained, and the relevant orders in the pending quashing petition.
A targeted request for preservation and examination of identified evidence will generally be stronger than a broad allegation of police collusion. The High Court will also consider whether the relief can be pursued through the pending criminal proceedings.
2. Can you seek further investigation before the Magistrate?
You can move an appropriately framed application, but further investigation is not an automatic right of the accused.
Section 193(9) BNSS preserves the power of the police to conduct further investigation after filing the police report. Your application should identify the specific evidence that was omitted, explain its relevance to the allegations under Sections 74 and 79 BNS, and show how it could materially affect the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1, addresses the Magistrate’s powers concerning further investigation under the corresponding CrPC provision. Its application must be considered alongside the wording of Section 193(9) BNSS and the present stage of your case.
Your application should not merely repeat the grounds of the quashing petition. Identify concrete investigative omissions—for example, failure to examine available police witnesses or collect records capable of testing the alleged occurrence.
3. Can you seek preservation of CDRs and tower-location records under Section 94 BNSS?
Yes. This is one of the most time-sensitive steps you should consider.
Section 94 BNSS empowers a court to require production of documents, electronic communications and other relevant material where necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry or trial.
There is particularly relevant authority from your jurisdiction: in Parveen Kumar Bindal v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-[deleted], decided on 27 May 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dealt with preservation of CDRs and tower-location records sought by an accused. The Court emphasised that the applicant must demonstrate the necessity and relevance of the records; a vague or fishing request is insufficient.
You can therefore ask the competent court to preserve relevant records relating to:
-
Your mobile number and the complainant’s number.
-
The numbers of identifiable police personnel who were present, where relevant.
-
A narrowly defined period covering the alleged occurrence.
-
Tower-location records and other specifically identified electronic evidence that may establish who was present and when.
State the date, approximate time, location, mobile numbers where known, and precise relevance of each category of records. Seek preservation urgently, because records may be lost under service providers’ retention policies. Preservation and eventual production are separate matters; the court can consider privacy safeguards and the proper stage for disclosure. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision above provides a useful starting point.
You may also request the investigating officer and the senior police authorities to preserve the records immediately. Do not wait for the final disposal of the quashing petition if relevant records may disappear.
4. Can you seek discharge while quashing is pending?
Generally, yes, unless the High Court has passed an order staying the proceedings or there is some other specific procedural impediment. The mere pendency of a quashing petition does not, by itself, stay the Magistrate’s proceedings.
However, consider the sequence carefully:
-
If the evidence you seek to preserve may be lost, move urgently for preservation.
-
If you seek further investigation, explain why the omitted evidence is material and why the request should be decided before charges are considered.
-
Do not assume that filing an application automatically postpones the discharge hearing. Obtain an express order if you need the matter deferred.
Whether the Magistrate can or should direct further investigation on your application will depend on the applicable law, the procedural stage and the nature of the relief sought.
5. Will your Section 223 BNSS complaint be dismissed because of the police case?
No, not automatically. Your complaint is a separate proceeding, and the pending police case does not, by itself, require its dismissal.
The Magistrate will independently examine whether your complaint discloses sufficient grounds to proceed. Under Sections 225–227 BNSS, the Court may conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation in the circumstances permitted by law, dismiss the complaint for recorded reasons, or issue process where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Keep your complaint focused on the specific offences, evidence and alleged misconduct you can substantiate. Avoid treating the complaint as merely a counterblast to the case against you.
6. If the Single Judge rejects your quashing petition, can you approach a Division Bench or the Supreme Court?
A Division Bench appeal is not automatically available against every order passed by a Single Judge in criminal jurisdiction. Its maintainability depends on the nature of the order and the applicable High Court rules and law.
Depending on the order, a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution may be considered before the Supreme Court. Your advocate should examine the exact order, its reasoning and the available remedies before choosing the next step. A second proceeding should not simply reproduce arguments already rejected.
My suggested priority
-
Seek immediate preservation of the relevant electronic records.
-
Obtain the status and result of the counter-complaint’s preliminary inquiry, including the action-taken report and any closure report available under law.
-
Prepare a focused application identifying the precise omissions in the investigation and the evidence that needs to be collected.
-
Coordinate the timing of that application, your discharge proceedings and the pending quashing petition.
-
Preserve all orders and acknowledgements concerning your representations to senior police officers.
One important qualification: your allegation that the police acted in collusion with the complainant must be supported by objective material. The fact that your evidence was not accepted, or that the police filed a chargesheet, does not by itself establish collusion.
