Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1120 (MP)

Sanjay Singh v. State of M. P.

2005-11-07

S.A.NAQVI, S.S.JHA

body2005
ORDER Jha, J. - 1. This petition is filed by the petitioners in public interest challenging the action of the respondents whereby reinvestigation is handed over to CID in violation of Chapter 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Regulation 16 of the M.P. Police Regulations. 2. Question raised by the petitioners is that on intervention of politicians or people having influence, investigation in criminal case is hampered by conducting parallel investigation or fresh investigation by the police in criminal cases in violation of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and Police Regulations. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that order was passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 446/05 that in case respondent No.5 Ramlakhan Dhakad is absconding and warrant of arrest has been issued against him and he is wanted in any criminal case, Superintendent of Police, Morena shall ensure action in the matter and send compliance report to the Registry of this Court. After the orders of this Court, names of Ramlakhan and Pramod Dhakad were deleted from the challan papers which is apparent from Annexure P-2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a complaint under sections 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code has been registered against one Bakhtawar Singh, who is retired Additional Superintendent of Police. Said Bakhtawar Singh met one Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Member of Parliament and said Shivraj Singh Chauhan wrote a letter to the Chief Minister vide Annexure P-5. On the letter, Chief Minister directed that the investigation be conducted by CID. In the complaint it was alleged that investigation for an offence under sections 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 63/2005 is not carried out properly. In pursuance of this letter, final report was submitted by Devendra Singh Sisodiya that no case is made out against Bakhtawar Singh, Palvinder, Narendra Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Vindar Singh, Harisingh, Gurulal and Jitendra Singh. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this type of report by holding parallel inquiry or reinvestigation by CID is demoralizing the police force and the alleged accused are released without any trial. He submitted that direction to hold inquiry by CID in contravention of Regulation 16 of the Police Regulations deserves to be quashed. Any person who is accused of some crime must prove his innocence before the Court. He submitted that direction to hold inquiry by CID in contravention of Regulation 16 of the Police Regulations deserves to be quashed. Any person who is accused of some crime must prove his innocence before the Court. Similarly, Ramlakhan has also submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Morena, praying therein that investigation be conducted by some senior police officer. Superintendent of Police, Morena directed SDO(P), Joura, to conduct inquiry. SDO(P) Morena, conducted the inquiry and found that Ramlakhan Dhakad and Pramod Dhakad were not involved in the crime. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that on account of directions of parallel inquiry or inquiry by some superior officer, wrong message is going to the public that if somebody is in a position to wield influence, he can shun the investigation against him by adopting aforesaid method. 3. Counsel for the State submitted that police has statutory powers to investigate the offence which should be exercised constitutionally as per the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and there should not be abuse of powers. Investigation conducted by CID or higher police officer is neither illegal nor arbitrary and it is permissible. It is also contended by the State that practice of false implication of accused cannot be ruled out. 4. Question involved in the case is whether on the complaint of accused to the Chief Minister or Member of Parliament or MLA, whether fresh investigation by other investigating agency or by some higher authority can be ordered or whether fresh investigation can be permitted or fresh FIR can he lodged. 5. Regulation 16 of the M.P. Police Regulations is reproduced below: "16. Serious Crime. -- The co-ordination of the work of the Criminal Investigation Department with that of the District police is entirely in the hand of the Deputy Inspector General incharge of that department. Superintendents will immediately report to him any case of special difficulty which baft1es the local police, cases of professional or organized crime, and cases of counterfeit coining or note forgery. He will also be sent copies of the special and supplementary reports in all cases of dacoity, administering stupefying drugs by suspected professionals, and any other case of special interest. Superintendents will immediately report to him any case of special difficulty which baft1es the local police, cases of professional or organized crime, and cases of counterfeit coining or note forgery. He will also be sent copies of the special and supplementary reports in all cases of dacoity, administering stupefying drugs by suspected professionals, and any other case of special interest. It will be for him to decide whether an officer of the Criminal Investigation Department should be deputed to assist the local police or whether the case should be taken out of the hands of the local police altogether by the Criminal Investigation Department. He will submit once a month for the information of the Inspector General a summary of the work done by the Criminal Investigation Department." 6. It may be seen that the police have been given discretion to get the matter investigated by Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the procedure is prescribed in the Regulation. It is expected that the said provision must be followed. Without following the aforesaid provision, if every criminal case is handed over to the CID, then it will be difficult for the investigating agency to proceed further with the case and it will create apprehension in the mind of people that the person who are wielding clout in the society can stall criminal proceedings against them. 7. This question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Vinay Kumar v. State of M.P. [ 2001(3) MPLJ 306 ] and this Court held that Deputy Inspector General of Police or any other competent authority shall keep in view the Regulation 16 and law governing the field about the role of an accused in the matter of investigation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Unless said authority finds that there are justifiable reasons for transfer of investigation from the district police to the Criminal Investigation Department, it may not pass such order. 8. In the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others [ (2001)6 SCC 181 ], the apex Court has considered the scope of sections 154 and 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that right of police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the Court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. While considering the scope of section 154, Criminal Procedure Code, it is held that information received under sub-section (1) of section 154, Criminal Procedure Code is commonly known as the first information report (FIR). Lodging of FIR sets criminal law in motion and marks commencement of investigation which ends up with the formation of opinion under section 169 or 170, Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequent opinion or statement during investigation cannot be termed as subsequent FIR and will not be in conformity with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation on the report must be conducted. During investigation, if some objections are raised before the authority and if it requires to be examined, it will be examined and it will not be proper to change investigation in every case particularly in case where challan has been filed. 9. In the C.B.I. v. Rajesh Gandhi [ AIR 1997 SC 93 ], it is held that the accused has no say in the matter of investigation. He has no say in questioning right of person to investigate the offence he is charged with. Decision to investigate or decision on agency which should investigate does not attract principles of natural justice. It is held in this judgment that there is no provision in law under which while granting consent or extending the powers and jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the specified State and to any specified case any reasons required to be recorded on the face of notification. If investigation by local police is not satisfactory, further investigation is not precluded. In this case, local police had filed a final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. Report has not been accepted. When the Central Government with the consent of the State Government issued impugned notification whereby the CBI was directed to further investigate the offence registered under the said FIR with the consent of the State Government. However, the apex Court ordered that there is no requirement of law under which further investigation by CBI are required to be recorded in the notification of this kind. 10. However, the apex Court ordered that there is no requirement of law under which further investigation by CBI are required to be recorded in the notification of this kind. 10. In the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal [ (2004)3 SCC 349 ], right of the third party to challenge sentence and conviction was considered and it is held that the third party has no locus standi to challenge the said order. Similarly, in the case of Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and others [ (2004)3 SCC 363 ], question of maintainability of PIL is considered particularly the ground on which PIL is filed. 11. In the case of State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna [ AIR 1980 SC 326 ], it is held that the State Government is competent to direct Inspector General, Vigilance to take over investigation of cognizable offence registered at police station and there is no conflict between section 3 of Police Act and section 173(8) of the Code. Interference with the investigation of cognizable offence is, normally, not open under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the case of State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak [ AIR 1963 SC 447 ], it is held that investigation into cognizable offence cannot be interfered with when no charge is laid. 13. In the case of R.P. Kapur v. Sardar Pratap Singh [AIR 1961 SC 11] 7]. In this case, complaint was sent to the Chief Minister. Said complaint was sent to Additional Inspector General of Police and investigation was carried out on the said complaint by Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID) in view of status of the accused. Court held that even complaint sent to the Chief Minister can be treated as FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and investigation can be carried on the said complaint. 14. Question involved in the case is once investigation is carried out on the information received, when fresh investigation can be ordered, the scope and the circumstances under which such orders can be passed. 15. Normally, it is the investigating agency which is empowered to entrust investigation to any officer and it is also empowered to withdraw investigation from one officer and appoint senior officer for investigation. 15. Normally, it is the investigating agency which is empowered to entrust investigation to any officer and it is also empowered to withdraw investigation from one officer and appoint senior officer for investigation. However, handing over a case for investigation to CID should be strictly in terms of regulation 16 of the M.P. Police Regulations and in terms of provisions of Chapter 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. Practice of handing over investigation to CID after tiling of challan in Court is not permissible. Normally, investigation should not be interfered with unless strong prima facie and cogent reasons are available with the superior officer and investigation should be carried out by the same officer. If the higher authorities are of the opinion that fair investigation is not being carried out, it may examine the matter and if need be, entrust the investigation to the higher officer. However, investigation cannot be handed over to Criminal Investigation Department (CID) as a matter of course or on demand by a person suspected to have committed the crime, commonly known as accused. Accused must co-operate in the investigation and if he feels that investigation is carried out improperly he has remedy to move application before the Court where challan is filed against him. 17. Regulation 16 relates to serious crime. If provides that the case of special difficulty which baffles the local police, cases of professional or organized crime, and cases of counterfeit coining or note forgery, should be examined by Superintendent of Police and report be sent by him to Deputy Inspector General in charge of that department with reason to handover case to CID. Thus, after examination and report by Superintendent of Police, handing over of case to CID shall be considered by the competent authority. 18. Criminal Investigation Department is defined in Regulation 7. Normally, investigation should not be interfered with at the instance of accused. However, if some irregularity is found or it is found that an innocent citizen is falsely implicated, the case should be examined by Superintendent of Police and he may either depute senior officer to investigate the matter or may investigate the case personally. But, once investigation commenced, it should be completed without interference. If day to day working of investigation is interfered with, then it will be difficult to hold fresh and fair investigation. But, once investigation commenced, it should be completed without interference. If day to day working of investigation is interfered with, then it will be difficult to hold fresh and fair investigation. Handing over investigation to CID should be in a special case. 19. Regulation 879 relates to supervision by Superintendent of Police in cases where investigation has been refused. However, where the Superintendent of Police is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that proper investigation is not carried out, then investigation officer may be changed. But practice of handing over case to CID is deprecated. 20. Considering the facts of the case, direction to hand over the investigation to CID is quashed and it is directed that if investigation in the present case has been completed and challan has been filed, then no further investigation is necessary. Then it is for the Court to decide correctness of complaint. In case final report is submitted, then the case should be examined by Superintendent of Police or any other higher officer and if commission of any cognizable offence is found, then challan be tiled in accordance with law. 21. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. Security amount be refunded to the petitioners.