Section 36 CrPC | Parallel Enquiry Not Maintainable During Pendency Of Investigation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench recently held that a parallel enquiry ordered under Section 36 CrPC is not maintainable during the pendency of the investigation. Declaring the enquiry report a nullity, Justice G.S. Ahluwalia directed the Investigating Officer not to consider the same for the purpose of investigation- Thus, it is clear that the parallel enquiry under Section 36 of CrPC is not maintainable during the pendency of investigation. In spite of clear judicial pronouncement, it is surprising that S.P., Bhind again directed the SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind to conduct a parallel enquiry. This action of S.P, Bhind cannot be appreciated. However, since the parallel enquiry during pendency of investigation is not maintainable, therefore, the report submitted by SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind is a nullity and cannot be made a part of the police case diary or the investigation and thus, the Investigating Officer cannot be directed to look into the report submitted by the SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind. Facts of the case were that the Petitioner was accused of offences punishable under Sections 376, 450 IPC. While the investigation was pending, the officer concerned, under the directions of the Superintendent of Police submitted a report, concluding that the FIR lodged by the Complainant/Prosecutrix was false. Accordingly, the Petitioner moved the Court, praying that considering the aforesaid report, the Investigating Officer be directed to file the closure report. Opposing the prayer, the State argued that owing to the settled position of law, a parallel enquiry, even under Section 36 CrPC is not maintainable. Therefore, the report was not maintainable in the eye of law and it could not be considered by the Investigating Officer. Concurring with the submissions of the State, the Court acknowledged the established principle of law with regard to a parallel enquiry under Section 36 CrPC. Thus, the Investigating Officer was directed to not consider the said report for any purpose or to make it a part of the final report/charge-sheet- Therefore, it is directed that Investigating Officer shall not include the report dated 13.01.2022 submitted by SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind in the police case diary and if it has already been taken on record, then it shall not be considered at all for any purpose and shall not be made a part of the final report. The Court further directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation and file the final report/charge-sheet/closure report as per the mandate of Section 173(1) CrPC. With the aforesaid directions, the petition was dismissed. Case Title: MAHENDRA KUMAR VAIDYA VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 250Click Here To Read/Download Order

Section 36 CrPC | Parallel Enquiry Not Maintainable During Pendency Of Investigation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Section 36 CrPC | Parallel Enquiry Not Maintainable During Pendency Of Investigation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Zeeshan Thomas

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers