Judgment Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, in case FIR No.81 dated 09.06.2020, registered under Section 304-B of IPC at Police Station Kulgahri, District Ferozepur, whereby petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of the deceased’s brother Malkiat Singh, inter alia on the allegations that her sister/the deceased, was subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty after marriage and soon before her death on demand of more dowry by Gursewak Singh/husband, and the petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. 3. After lodging of the FIR against the three accused, the petitioners and their son, investigation of the case was assigned to the Investigation Officer. During investigation, an application was submitted by the petitioners’ nephew, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, to get the matter investigated by some senior police officer as the accused have been falsely implicated in the case. He marked the enquiry to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Rural, Ferozepur, who, based on an inquiry conducted at his own level into the case, declared the petitioners innocent. His report, dated 03.07.2020, has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. It is to the effect that the petitioners were not present at home at the time of the alleged incident, and were statedly implicated in the case on account of the exaggerated allegations levelled by the complainant on account of his sister’s death. Petitioner No.1 had gone to his brother’s house, along with his grandson, to enquire about his mother’s health; whereas, petitioner No.2 had gone to Ferozepur Cantonment, along with her nephew, in his car to get medicines. Therefore, it was found to be a case of false implication. 4. The Investigating Officer, in his report presented under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. found the petitioners innocent, and were kept in column 2. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that based on this enquiry report, Annexure P-3, the petitioners were found innocent and final report was presented by the Investigating Officer. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined Malkiat Singh (complainant/deceased’s brother) as PW3 and Darshan Singh (deceased’s father) as PW6. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that based on this enquiry report, Annexure P-3, the petitioners were found innocent and final report was presented by the Investigating Officer. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined Malkiat Singh (complainant/deceased’s brother) as PW3 and Darshan Singh (deceased’s father) as PW6. Both of them testified that the deceased, after marriage with the petitioners’ son, was residing with them in the matrimonial home. They also deposed about the dowry given in the marriage, and demands made by the petitioners, as also about the harassment meted out to the deceased soon before her death. Considering the application and the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 20.05.2022, summoned the petitioners as additional accused. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the trial Court has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as there is nothing to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences. He submits that both of them were not at home at the time of commission of alleged offences. The petitioners’ alibi duly stands established in the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, based upon which the petitioners have already been found innocent in the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. presented to the Court. Therefore, there is no basis to summon the petitioners as additional accused, and the impugned order is in violation of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the contrary, has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have been rightly summoned as additional accused, as they were declared innocent on the basis of procured enquiry report, which was apparently got conducted by the petitioners due to their influence to wriggle out of the case. The plea of petitioners’ innocence and their alibi has wrongly been accepted by the Investigating Officer on the basis of this enquiry report, which cannot be done as it is a matter of trial, and onus is to be discharged by them by leading cogent evidence. 8. Learned State counsel, based upon the status report filed, has argued that the petitioners were not present at home at the time of occurrence. 8. Learned State counsel, based upon the status report filed, has argued that the petitioners were not present at home at the time of occurrence. During investigation no evidence came on file to connect the petitioners with the crime, due to which both the petitioners were found innocent. 9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and case file has been perused. 10. Undisputedly, the basis on which the petitioners have been found innocent in the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.PC, is the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Instead of conducting the investigation himself, the Investigating Officer followed the said enquiry report, as also the conclusions drawn therein, and found the petitioners innocent on the plea of alibi. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the State, are not able to point out any provision of law which entitles a senior police officer to order and/or conduct an enquiry, parallel to investigation of the case being carried out by the Investigating Officer as per provisions of the Code. He is required to conduct the investigation in an impartial manner, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstance, and arrive at the conclusion by proper appreciation of facts established during investigation, which cannot be interfered with or influenced even by the Courts. 11. It has been so held by the Supreme Court also in Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 12 SCC 529 . Relevant paragraph No.16 of the judgment reads as under: 16. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from any objectionable features or infirmities which may give rise to an apprehension in the mind of the complainant or the accused, that investigation was not fair and may have been carried out with some ulterior motive. The investigating officer must not indulge in any kind of mischief, or cause harassment either to the complainant or to the accused. His conduct must be entirely impartial and must dispel any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the investigation. The investigating officer, “is not merely present to strengthen the case of the prosecution with evidence that will enable the court to record a conviction, but to bring out the real unvarnished version of the truth”. Ethical conduct on the part of the investigating agency is absolutely essential, and there must be no scope for any allegation of mala fides or bias. Ethical conduct on the part of the investigating agency is absolutely essential, and there must be no scope for any allegation of mala fides or bias. Words like “personal liberty” contained in Article 21 of the Constitution of India provide for the widest amplitude, covering all kinds of rights particularly, the right to personal liberty of the citizens of India, and a person cannot be deprived of the same without following the procedure prescribed by law. In this way, the investigating agencies are the guardians of the liberty of innocent citizens. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the investigating officer to ensure that an innocent person should not suffer from unnecessary harassment of false implication, however, at the same time, an accused person must not be given undue leverage. An investigation cannot be interfered with or influenced even by the courts. Therefore, the investigating agency must avoid entirely any kind of extraneous influence, and investigation must be carried out with equal alacrity and fairness irrespective of the status of the accused or the complainant, as a tainted investigation definitely leads to the miscarriage of criminal justice, and thus deprives a man of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, every investigation must be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the rules of law, as is required under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution. 12. In the instant case, however, the Investigating Officer has merely relied upon the conclusions arrived at in the enquiry, said to have been conducted on the petitioners’ application by a senior officer. He submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on that basis so far as involvement of the petitioners is concerned. This is patently illegal, and amounts to abdicating the authority vested in him to investigate the case. In doing so, he has misconducted himself, and violated provisions of the Code also. His conduct has raised question about genuineness of the investigation itself. The trial Court is not bound by any such enquiry, said to have been conducted by a senior police officer, nor is it required to accept the conclusions drawn by him or the Investigating Officer in his final report submitted on that basis. 13. His conduct has raised question about genuineness of the investigation itself. The trial Court is not bound by any such enquiry, said to have been conducted by a senior police officer, nor is it required to accept the conclusions drawn by him or the Investigating Officer in his final report submitted on that basis. 13. The issue is no longer res integra, as it has been laid down by this Court in Manjeet Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2022 (2) Law Herald (P&H) 1605, that the procedure of inquiry by senior officer(s) has no sanctity in law. The judgment reads as under: At this juncture, this Court deems it necessary, to notice once again the trend adopted by senior police officers of state police department, who engage themselves in holding inquiries on the representations on behalf of the accused, to examine their innocence, after registration of FIR and during the pendency of the investigation, and this practice is prevalent largely in the State of Punjab for a long time. Such inquiry reports by the inquiry officers based upon the defence of the accused are often delivered in their favour, and during this exercise, the inquiry officers illegally assume judicial role. Through this procedure, the accused persons make an attempt to dig a secret tunnel to create an escape route to avoid punishment, as this kind of disintegrated procedure of investigation throws doubts on the prosecution case, and makes it fragile. But, at the same time, in order to combat with this menace, which attempts to pollute the stream of justice, the judiciary at all levels has to play a vital role in blocking these slip away points, because the procedure of inquiry has no legitimate sanctity, however, such extra legal reports certainly add burden upon the judicial process of criminal trial. Time and again this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court have been reminding the trial Courts to act in accordance with the law at the stage of framing of charges and not to act as a mouthpiece of prosecution. Time and again this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court have been reminding the trial Courts to act in accordance with the law at the stage of framing of charges and not to act as a mouthpiece of prosecution. The senior officers are well aware of law relating to the investigations, but they deliberately violate the same for extraneous considerations to extend help to the accused by giving favourable reports in their favour and investigating officer, who is subordinate to such inquiry officer has no option, but to mould the final report to avoid the wrath of the senior police officer. This practice encourages criminals and gives rise to crime and though the State of Punjab enjoys power of superintendence upon the police department, but the State too has failed to check this illegal practice being carried out openly in every other criminal case. With these observations, it is expected that the State would take necessary effective steps to bring in order the procedure of investigation and prosecution of accused, in accordance with statutory provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court as well Hon’ble Supreme Court on various occasions have held that the accountability of the police officers and their misconduct cannot be ignored and the necessary disciplinary/penal action must be initiated against such guilty officers. The reference in this regard can be made to State of Gujarat Vs. Kishan Bhai and others, 2014 (5) SCC 108 . 14. Thus, in the light of law laid down, the trial Court was justified in summoning the petitioners as additional accused despite the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. placing them in column No.2. The impugned order records that right from the time of recording statement before the police till his examination on oath as PW3, the complainant consistently pointed towards involvement of the petitioners/accused in commission of the alleged offences. He categorically deposed that the petitioners along with their son/deceased’s husband, subjected the deceased to mental and physical cruelty as they remained dissatisfied with the dowry articles given at the time of marriage and demanded more dowry. He specifically deposed that on 09.06.2020, his deceased sister telephonically informed that the petitioners as well as their son were giving her beatings since morning on the pretext of bringing more dowry. She called the complainant seeking his help. He specifically deposed that on 09.06.2020, his deceased sister telephonically informed that the petitioners as well as their son were giving her beatings since morning on the pretext of bringing more dowry. She called the complainant seeking his help. He reached there along with his uncle Darshan Singh only to find his sister’s dead body lying on the cot inside the house. His testimony stands duly corroborated by PW6-Darshan Singh also. Based on these testimonies and other material evidence on the file, the trial Court held that it was sufficient to summon the petitioners as additional accused to face trial under Section 304-B of IPC along with their son. 15. It is, therefore, apparent on record that there exists more than prima facie case against the petitioners for commission of the alleged offences, for which they must face trial with the co-accused/their son. The impugned order has been passed on relevant considerations and sound reasoning, it does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. 16. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.