XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026

The petitioner was the mother of the child victim. According to the petition, the child was studying at a Gurukul where the alleged incident had occurred.

The petitioner challenged the manner in which the police investigation had been conducted and sought a reinvestigation/de novo investigation.

Several serious deficiencies were brought before the High Court:

The victim's name, address and mobile number had allegedly been disclosed in official case records despite the confidentiality protections applicable to child victims under the POCSO framework.

Relevant provisions of the POCSO Act were allegedly not incorporated in the charge-sheet.

The victim's statement was allegedly recorded inside the police station, rather than following the safeguards applicable to child victims.

When the High Court asked the Investigating Officer to produce the case diary, the officer produced loose sheets rather than a properly maintained, paginated case diary.

The Court subsequently directed the Superintendent of Police, Ratnagiri, to appear. The material produced as the case diary consisted of papers bound together with black tape, which the Court found did not satisfy the statutory requirements. 

The FIR had been registered on 16 October 2025, and the Court noted that more than eight months had passed while the investigation had been conducted in the manner described by the Bench. 

Maintenance of the case diary;

Compliance with POCSO safeguards;

Confidentiality of the child victim's identity;

Recording of the victim's statement;

Inclusion of appropriate statutory provisions; and

Overall credibility and reliability of the investigation.

The Bench relied on Supreme Court precedents including: Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police and Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali.

These authorities recognise that constitutional courts can, in appropriate circumstances, direct further investigation, fresh investigation, de novo investigation or transfer investigation to another agency, although such power must be exercised sparingly and with great caution. 

Investigation into FIR No. 317 of 2025 be transferred to the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Maharashtra.

The State CID conduct the investigation de novo.

An officer of the rank of Additional Director General of Police, State CID, personally supervise the investigation.

The Superintendent of Police, Ratnagiri, forward all relevant investigation papers to the State CID.

The matter be placed before the Court again on 21 July 2026, considering the serious investigative lapses recorded by the Bench.

Section 192 BNSS requires an investigating police officer to record investigative proceedings day by day, including the time information was received, commencement and completion of investigation, places visited and circumstances discovered. The diary must also be maintained as a duly paginated volume. 

The Court found that simply producing loose papers and subsequently binding them together did not satisfy this requirement.

This was important because a case diary provides a contemporaneous record through which the progress and integrity of an investigation can be examined.

Relying on Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and the principle discussed in Manu Sharma, the Court emphasised that proper police diaries promote fairness, transparency and accountability in investigation.

The Court treated the failure to maintain the diary properly as more than a technical irregularity because it affected the ability to scrutinise how the investigation had actually been conducted. 

The case involved a child victim, making compliance with the POCSO Act particularly important.

The Court was concerned about allegations that the victim's identifying information had appeared in official records and that the victim's statement had been recorded at the police station.

The judgment therefore reinforces that investigations involving children must be conducted with particular attention to the statutory safeguards designed to protect them.

The Court did not treat transfer of investigation as an ordinary remedy.

The judgment demonstrates the supervisory role of the High Court under Article 226.

The Court recognised that its jurisdiction can extend beyond merely reviewing an administrative decision and can, in appropriate criminal matters, require corrective investigative measures where the circumstances justify such intervention.

Police investigations must be properly documented.

Case diaries cannot be treated as a formality.

POCSO safeguards must be meaningfully followed.

Courts can scrutinise the conduct of an investigation where serious deficiencies are brought to their attention.

A de novo investigation can be ordered in exceptional circumstances.

Transfer of investigation to another agency is an extraordinary remedy and must be supported by the circumstances of the individual case.

Thus, the decision is significant primarily for its emphasis on investigative fairness, proper documentation, child-victim safeguards and judicial oversight of deficient investigations.