Accused Doesn't Have Right Of "Pre-Audience" To Dictate Manner Of Investigation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held that suspects or accused individuals cannot be given a pre-audience to determine the manner or agency of their investigation.

Justice G. S. Ahluwalia passed the order in a plea by the petitioner seeking directions on the police to conduct a 'free and fair' investigation, even before an FIR was registered against him. 

The legal question for consideration was whether a suspect or accused has the right to pre-audience or the right to demand an investigation by a particular agency or in a specific manner.

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus, certiorari, or any other suitable writ, directing respondents (the police authorities) to conduct a fair investigation should respondent No. 5 lodge any reports against the petitioners.

The issue presented by the petitioners was the request for a fair and unbiased investigation by the police authorities, should any complaint be lodged against them by respondent No. 5. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to ensure that the investigation adhered strictly to statutory provisions and was conducted impartially.

Justice Ahluwalia, referring extensively to Supreme Court rulings, clarified that the legal position on this issue is well-settled and leaves no room for ambiguity.

The court took up the view of the Apex Court in Romila Thapar vs. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court reiterated that accused persons do not have the right to dictate the appointment of the investigating agency. The court emphasized that the accused cannot choose which agency investigates the alleged offence. The court also highlighted that the investigation's credibility is paramount and should not be compromised by allowing the accused any influence over the investigating authority.

Thus, the High Court, aligning with the Apex Court's consistent view, dismissed the petitioners' plea for a directed investigation. Justice Ahluwalia emphasized that the accused does not possess the right to influence the investigation process, its manner, or the investigating agency. The court maintained that such demands from the accused are not supported by law and would undermine the judicial process's integrity and effectiveness.

The court highlighted that the accused could seek remedies at different stages during the investigation and trial, such as applying for bail or challenging the investigation's validity. However, these legal avenues do not extend to dictating the terms of the investigation itself.

Case title: Ajeet Patel and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Citation: (Writ Petition No. 20415 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Order