Introduction
In the criminal justice process under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the distinction between investigation and inquiry is crucial: investigation, conducted by the police or an authorised person, is an executive fact-finding mission aimed at collecting evidence and identifying offenders, while inquiry, carried out by a Magistrate or Court, is a judicial scrutiny that evaluates whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed with trial; together, these stages ensure that raw facts gathered during investigation are subjected to judicial oversight through inquiry, thereby maintaining a balance between effective prosecution and the protection of individual liberty.
Investigation: The Fact-Finding Mission
Investigation is the initial stage of a criminal case, primarily focused on the systematic collection of evidence. As defined under Section 2(1)(l) BNSS, it is an executive process conducted by a police officer or any other person authorised by a Magistrate (but never by a Magistrate themselves). The primary objective is to gather all relevant material facts and evidence to determine whether a crime was committed and, if so, to identify the person(s) responsible.
Objective of Investigation
- To gather all relevant material facts and evidence.
- To determine whether a crime was committed.
- To identify the person(s) responsible.
- To systematically collect evidence during the initial stage of a criminal case.
Example of Investigation
Example: In a burglary case, the police reach the scene, secure the area, lift fingerprints, record witness statements, trace stolen items, and conduct forensic analysis. The stage ends with the submission of the Police Report (Charge Sheet) under Section 193 BNSS to the Magistrate.
Inquiry: The Judicial Scrutiny
Inquiry begins after the investigation and acts as a bridge between the police report and the trial. Defined under Section 2(1)(k) BNSS, an “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Sanhita by a Magistrate or Court. It is a judicial proceeding aimed at determining whether there is a prima facie case against the accused, i.e., whether the allegations appear true on the face of the evidence. Its purpose is not to convict but to prevent frivolous or baseless cases from proceeding to full trial.
Objective of Inquiry
- To examine the material placed before the magistrate or court.
- To determine whether there is a prima facie case against the accused.
- To assess whether the allegations appear true on the face of the evidence.
- To prevent frivolous or baseless cases from proceeding to full trial.
- To provide judicial scrutiny before the criminal case proceeds further.
Example of Inquiry
Example: After receiving the charge sheet in a murder case, the Magistrate examines the evidence and documents to decide whether to frame charges, commit the case to Sessions Court, or discharge the accused.
Magistrate’s Power to Order Investigation
Note: A Magistrate may also order investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS (corresponding to old Section 156(3) CrPC) on a complaint.
Investigation and Inquiry: Key Difference
| Aspect | Investigation | Inquiry |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Executive fact-finding process | Judicial scrutiny |
| Primarily Conducted By | Police officer or authorised person | Magistrate or Court |
| Primary Purpose | Collection of facts and evidence and identification of offenders | Determining whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed |
| Stage | Initial stage of a criminal case | Judicial stage between investigation and trial |
| Result | Police Report (Charge Sheet) | Judicial determination regarding further proceedings |
Key Differences Between Investigation and Inquiry
| Sl. No. | Basis | Investigation | Inquiry |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Definition (BNSS) | Collection of evidence by police/authorised person (Section 2(1)(l)) | Judicial examination by magistrate/court, other than a trial (Section 2(1)(k)) |
| 2 | Conducted by | Police or authorised person | Magistrate or Court |
| 3 | Nature | Executive/Administrative | Judicial |
| 4 | Purpose | Discover facts and collect evidence. | Determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed with the trial. |
| 5 | Stage in Proceedings | Before judicial proceedings | After investigation, before trial |
| 6 | Scope | Search, seizure, interrogation, forensic examination, etc. | Evaluation of evidence already collected |
| 7 | Commencement | Investigation typically starts with registration of an FIR (Section 173 BNSS) for cognisable offences or a complaint for non-cognisable. | Begins when the magistrate examines case records/evidence. Inquiry by Magistrate can start on a complaint (Section 223 BNSS) or after a police report. |
| 8 | Outcome | Police Report/Charge Sheet (Section 193) | Discharge, framing of charge, committal, or other judicial order |
| 9 | Control | Police hierarchy | Judicial discretion |
| 10 | Evidence Handling | Collection and preservation of evidence | Assessment of admissibility and sufficiency of evidence |
| 11 | Examples | Recording witness statements, conducting searches, forensic analysis | Committal proceedings, an inquiry into the offence before trial |
| 12 | Legal Character | Fact-finding, non-judicial | Judicial determination, quasi-judicial |
| 13 | Rights of Accused | Limited participation; the accused may be questioned. | The accused has the right to be heard before charges are framed. |
| 14 | Oath | Statements are generally not taken on oath and are not substantive evidence. | The magistrate has the power to examine witnesses on oath. |
| 15 | End Result | Leads to submission of police report in final form to magistrate | Leads to commencement or dismissal of trial |
5. Case Laws
The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between investigation and inquiry in several landmark decisions.
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi
In H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi (AIR 1955 SC 196), the Court explained that investigation is a police function directed towards collecting evidence. It includes visiting the scene of occurrence, ascertaining facts, identifying and examining witnesses, conducting searches and seizures where necessary, and forming an opinion on whether an offence appears to have been committed.
State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey
In contrast, State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey (AIR 1957 SC 389) held that an inquiry is a judicial proceeding conducted by a Magistrate or Court, other than a trial.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh
In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh ((2014) 2 SCC 1), the Court clarified that a preliminary enquiry by the police is permissible only in limited categories of cases to ascertain whether a cognizable offence is disclosed. It cannot replace the mandatory registration of an FIR where such an offence is evident.
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel
Further, in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel ((2017) 4 SCC 177), the Court observed that an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 223 of the BNSS) is a judicial exercise undertaken to determine whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused. It is distinct from a police investigation.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI
In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025), the Supreme Court, while primarily dealing with arrest procedures and bail under Section 35 of the BNSS, explicitly highlighted the difference between investigation, inquiry, and judicial proceedings as envisaged under the BNSS, 2023.
This observation reiterates the long-standing executive-judicial distinction — that investigation is an executive function carried out by the police for collection of evidence, whereas inquiry is a judicial process conducted by a Magistrate to scrutinise the evidence and determine whether a prima facie case exists.
The Court made this clarification to emphasise the separation of powers and to ensure that the procedural safeguards under the new criminal law continue to respect this fundamental demarcation between police powers and judicial oversight.
6. Police Enquiry
A police enquiry is a preliminary, informal fact-finding exercise conducted by the police to verify the truth of a complaint or information before registering a formal FIR. It is not a term specifically defined under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and is different from a police investigation.
Unlike a formal investigation under Section 2(1)(l) BNSS, it is not a statutorily defined term. It involves basic enquiries such as speaking to the complainant and witnesses, inspecting the scene, or examining documents to determine whether a cognisable offence has been committed.
Examples of Police Enquiry
For instance, in cases of a missing mobile phone, matrimonial disputes, medical negligence, or financial fraud, the police may first conduct such an enquiry to assess if the allegation merits registration of an FIR.
If a cognisable offence is disclosed, the police register the FIR under Section 173 BNSS and proceed with formal investigation. Otherwise, the matter may be closed without further action.
7. Conclusion
The distinction between ‘investigation’ and ‘inquiry’ is fundamental to the criminal justice system under the BNSS. Investigation is the police-driven “hunt” for raw facts and evidence, while inquiry serves as a vital judicial filter to protect individuals from unwarranted prosecution.
By separating the executive power of evidence collection from the judicial power of evaluation, the law maintains an essential system of checks and balances.
Investigation builds the case; inquiry tests its strength.
This clear separation upholds both the state’s duty to prosecute crime and the individual’s right to liberty and fair process.
