Accused Cannot Dictate Manner Of Investigation Or Choice Of Agency, Supervision Of Court Over Investigation Is Limited: MP High Court
Siddhi Nigam
31 July 2024 2:05 PM GMT
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in a case presided over by Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, has ruled that the accused has no right to demand a particular manner of investigation or specific investigating agency and Court supervision of the investigation is limited to ensuring its proper progress and maintaining public confidence.
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR against them, alleged that the FIR was based on fabricated documents and contended that the police investigation was not being conducted properly despite pointing out discrepancies.
Court discussed whether suspects could dictate the manner of investigation or the choice of the investigating agency in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Romila Thapar vs. Union of India (2018) provided clarity on this issue. It reaffirmed that accused individuals do not have the right to choose or influence the appointment of the investigating agency.
The consistent judicial stance, emphasizes that the accused can challenge the investigation only at the trial stage, where they can contest the evidence gathered and the method employed, the Court said.
The second question addressed was whether the court could supervise the investigation. The Supreme Court's decision in Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Principal Secretary (2014) was relied on to elucidate this matter, stating that court supervision is intended to ensure proper progress of the investigation without directing its mode or manner. The primary objective is to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the investigation and ensure that it is conducted fairly and logically according to law.
In examining the petitioners' claims, the court considered several important judgments such as Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala 2008, which stated that the High Court cannot change the investigating officer midstream without strong evidence of mala fide intent. Further, it perused the case of the State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010), which emphasized that orders directing CBI investigations should be issued sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances to ensure justice and uphold fundamental rights.
The court found that the petitioners had merely pointed out discrepancies without presenting substantial material evidence of mala fide actions by the investigating officers. Consequently, a vague and unsubstantiated assertion was deemed insufficient to warrant intervention.
The court referenced additional precedents to reinforce the established protocol such as W.N. Chadha vs. Union of India (1993) highlighted that the principles of natural justice do not require hearing the accused at the investigation stage.
The case of Rajesh Gandhi vs. CBI (1996) affirmed that the decision to investigate does not attract principles of natural justice, and the accused cannot choose the investigating agency.
In light of these judicial precedents, the High Court concluded that the accused has no right to demand a particular manner of investigation or specific investigating agency. It said that the investigation should proceed independently without the accused's interference, ensuring that due process is followed.
The Court clarified that the supervision of the investigation is limited to ensuring its proper progress and maintaining public confidence. It does not extend to directing the investigative methods unless exceptional circumstances necessitate such intervention.
Case title: Sant Kumar Patel And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: WRIT PETITION No. 5790 of 2024
