Delhi High Court Declines Accused's Plea For Further Investigation, Says Its Purpose Not To Prove Defence Of Accused

The Delhi High Court has said that the right of further investigation of the Police does not extend for mere 'reinvestigation' or 'fresh investigation' to be started ab initio.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the purpose of further investigation is also not to prove or establish the defence of the accused.

The court observed that if the circumstances deserve for a further investigation, the power of the jurisdictional court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition and the same is not ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the court.

“Whether further investigation should or should not be directed is within the discretion of the jurisdictional court which exercises the discretion on the facts of each case, before the trial actually commences by framing of charge. A fair trial is the imperative in dispensation of justice,” the court said.

It added: “The objective for 'further investigation' remains to find the truth and bring evidence on record for ensuring substantial justice. However, this right does not extend for mere 'reinvestigation' or 'fresh investigation' to be started ab initio.”

The court made the observations while dealing with a plea moved by an accused challenging a trial court order dismissing his application for further investigation in a rape case.

The complainant alleged that she met the accused on a dating app and entered into sexual relationship on the promise of marriage by him. She further alleged that she got pregnant after which the accused blocked her mobile number.

The accused had then moved an application for conducting further investigation qua the angle of honey trapping and extortion by the complainant.

Justice Mendiratta noted that no complaint of extortion was made by the accused and there was no iota of allegation to substantiate the case that the complainant was a member of gang of honey trapping. 

The court said that the allegation that the woman may be a member of gang of 'honey trapping' or the second mobile phone used by her may contain some evidence of extortion, does not appeal to direct further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.

“In view of above, no grounds are made out to direct further investigation as prayed by the petitioner. However, the cost of Rs.20,000/- directed to be deposited by the petitioner vide impugned order is set aside. Petition is accordingly disposed of,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Ms.Parthvi Ahuja and Ms.Prapti Singh, Advocates

Counsel for Respondent: Ms.Rupali Bandhopadya, ASC for State

Title: PIYUSH AGARWAL v. NCT OF DELHI

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 139

Click Here To Read Order