Accused Has No Right To Be Heard On Mode Or Agency Of Investigation; Cannot Seek Impleadment In Writ Seeking Probe: Calcutta High Court
Observing that an accused has no right of audience in matters concerning the manner or mode of investigation, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed applications seeking impleadment in a writ petition filed for investigation into alleged police inaction and collusion. The Court held that neither a complainant in a separate FIR nor persons who are merely prospective accused can insist on...
Observing that an accused has no right of audience in matters concerning the manner or mode of investigation, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed applications seeking impleadment in a writ petition filed for investigation into alleged police inaction and collusion. The Court held that neither a complainant in a separate FIR nor persons who are merely prospective accused can insist on being added as parties at the investigation stage.
Justice Suvra Ghosh clarified that criminal law does not contemplate participation of an accused during investigation and that the choice of investigating agency or the manner of probe lies within the discretion of the Court. Interference at the behest of persons apprehending criminal action against them would run contrary to settled principles governing criminal procedure.
The applications arose in a writ petition filed by Arnab Paul, who sought investigation into his complaint alleging bias and collusion on the part of certain police officials and private individuals. During the pendency of the petition, one applicant — who had lodged an FIR against the petitioner — and others, who were named in the petitioner's complaint as prospective accused, sought to be impleaded, contending that any order in the writ would affect their rights.
They argued that the pleadings cast allegations against them and relied on the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to claim that an accused is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before cognizance is taken. On this basis, they claimed they were necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.
The Court, however, rejected the contention. It noted that the writ petition did not seek quashing of the FIR lodged by the applicant, and the petitioner had also not pressed his prayer for protection from coercive steps. The reliefs sought were confined to investigation of the petitioner's own complaint. Therefore, the presence of the applicants was not required for effective adjudication of the dispute.
Reiterating settled law, the Court observed that an accused has no right of hearing regarding the conduct of investigation and cannot participate as a matter of right until the investigation culminates in filing of a final report or process is issued by a Magistrate. The Court emphasised that the question of entrusting investigation to a particular agency is essentially within judicial discretion.
On the reliance placed on the BNSS, the Court clarified that Section 223(1) applies to complaints before a Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance and not to police investigations. Similarly, Section 175(3) does not confer any hearing right upon an accused. As such, the statutory provisions did not support the applicants' plea for impleadment.
Holding that neither the FIR complainant nor the prospective accused could be termed necessary or proper parties in a writ seeking investigation, the Court found both applications devoid of merit and dismissed them.
Case Title: Arnab Paul v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Court: Calcutta High Court
Case No: WPA No. 28933 of 2025