In an age where criminal law is increasingly deployed as an instrument of pressure rather than a pursuit of truth, judicial interventions that return us to first principles assume a significance far beyond the disputes that occasion them.
The order delivered by Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Bhatia on 9 February 2026 in Application under Section 528 BNSS No. 1980 of 2025, Kamalesh Agnihotri @ Kamal & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh is one such intervention. What begins as a seemingly mundane disagreement over parking regulations and penalties within a residential society unfolds into a judicial inquiry into the ethics of investigation, the limits of criminal process, and the constitutional dangers inherent in its misuse.
The Court’s judgment is not confined to resolving a private dispute. It undertakes a careful and methodical examination of whether allegations of extortion and harassment levelled against the Resident Welfare Association (RWA) could, in law, attract offences under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. In doing so, the Court situates the controversy within a larger constitutional framework, reaffirming that criminal law must remain an instrument of justice—not a device for coercion, intimidation, or personal score-settling.
What lends the judgment its distinctive moral force is the Court’s concluding observation: “With great powers come great responsibility.” This is not a rhetorical flourish. It is directed squarely at Opposite Party No. 2, who sought to invoke his association with the RSS, a highly disciplined cultural organisation, to browbeat elected members of the RWA. The Court censures this conduct, noting that the misuse of institutional affiliation not only corrodes democratic functioning at the grassroots but also brings disrepute to the organisation itself. While the Court consciously refrains from entering into questions of the RSS’s internal discipline, its message is unequivocal-no institutional or social association can confer license to misuse the criminal process. In this sense, the judgment transcends technical adjudication and enters the realm of ethical responsibility in public life.
The decision is further strengthened by its engagement with a formidable body of Supreme Court jurisprudence, making it a veritable treatise for students and practitioners of criminal law—each authority cited deserving close reading, particularly by younger members of the Bar.
Drawing from State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 Supp (1) SCC 222), the Court reiterates that investigation is a search for truth, not a quest for convictions. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254 is relied upon to emphasize impartiality and to caution against investigative harassment. In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762, fair investigation is defined as one that is unbiased and truth-oriented, while Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348 underscores the need to balance the rights of the accused with those of the victim.
The Court invokes Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 2 SCC 532 to reaffirm that an investigation is fundamentally a quest for truth, and uses Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626 to stress that the criminal justice system must ensure that no innocent person suffers. The constitutional imperative of police impartiality, articulated in Rajiv Singh v. State of Bihar (2015) 16 SCC 369, and is reinforced alongside the warning issued in Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal (2017) 16 SCC 466 against perfunctory and mechanical investigations. The judgment also draws upon Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441 to affirm fair investigation as a fundamental right, and Azija Begum v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 3 SCC 126 to link it directly with the guarantee of equality under Article 14.
Ultimately, the judgment stands as a cautionary marker in a time when the boundary between grievance and vendetta is increasingly blurred. It reiterates that criminal law is neither an instrument of intimidation nor a shortcut to settle civil or social disputes, and certainly not a weapon to be sanctified by invoking proximity to power or institutional affiliation. For investigating agencies, it is a reminder that fairness is not a procedural luxury but a constitutional obligation. For individuals, it is a warning that stature—real or claimed—cannot legitimize abuse of process. And for advocates, students of law, academics, and judges alike, this decision endures as a moral and constitutional compass, demonstrating how procedural fairness, judicial restraint, and ethical responsibility must together anchor the criminal justice system.
About Author
Advocate Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi
Courtesy: The AIDEM