Bias and failure of statutory inquiry can invalidate criminal proceedings where fairness of complaint and investigation is undermined.

Criminal proceedings may be quashed where the complaint or investigation gives rise to a real likelihood or reasonable apprehension of bias, assessed from the standpoint of a fair-minded informed observer. A police officer who merely registers a case and then investigates does not, by that fact alone, create inherent bias; however, incompatible roles or a failure to conduct the statutory inquiry can undermine fairness. Under the Railways Act, the authorised officer was required to inquire, summon persons and record statements before filing a complaint, but only railway officials were examined and the petitioners were not called. The complaint was therefore treated as filed without the required satisfaction that an offence had been committed, and the proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground of bias in the complaint and investigation, and on the ground that the authorised officer failed to conduct the inquiry contemplated by the Railways Act before filing the complaint.

Analysis: Bias is not to be proved as actual bias in every case; the relevant inquiry is whether there is a real likelihood of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias from the standpoint of a fair-minded informed observer. Where a police officer merely registers a case on information and thereafter investigates, no inherent bias arises. But where an officer occupies incompatible roles, or where the statutory inquiry is not properly undertaken, the fairness of the proceedings becomes suspect. Under the Railways Act, the authorised officer had powers to inquire, summon persons, record statements, and take further steps before proceeding with a complaint. In the present case, the authorised officer only recorded statements of railway officials, did not call the petitioners for inquiry, and the complaint was filed without the inquiry required for satisfaction that an offence had been committed. On those facts, the proceedings did not satisfy the standard of fairness required in criminal action.

Conclusion: The proceedings were held liable to be quashed; the complaint case was set aside in favour of the petitioners.

---