Parallel Inquiry During Investigation/After Submission Of Final Report: P&H High Court Quashes Govt's Direction

In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court last week directed the police department of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh not to hold a simultaneous inquiry in criminal matters and further quashed the instructions of the Director Bureau of Investigation of Punjab issued in 2017. While declining the bail pleas of two accused in separate cases, the Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj explicitly ruled that holding of simultaneous inquiry, either during investigation or post submission of final report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C is incomprehensible under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter before the Court The petitioners before the Court are accused in two different crime and they filed separate bail pleas, however, looking at the fact that the procedure of investigation adopted by state police in the above cases was similar and extremely strange, the cases were decided through a common judgment. Both the Counsels, appearing for the petitioners mainly set up the common ground and sought bail on merits by placing reliance upon the respective supplementary report(s) filed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Significantly, it was contended that in view of supplementary reports under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C filed in favor of petitioners, the charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C filed earlier against them not be considered and they be granted bail based on supplementary reports under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. Problem with both the cases We know that a prosecution based upon a police report starts with the registration of a First Information Report, regarding alleged commission of cognizable offence. Further, in case, sufficient incriminating evidence is collected during the investigation, the accused is sent to face the trial along with the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, and on the contrary, if, the evidence is not available, the investigating officer is supposed to declare the suspect as innocent. Significantly, in the present cases, when the investigation in both the FIRs was in progress, the separate representations on behalf of the various accused persons or through their relatives were entertained by Senior Police Officers, who ordered simultaneous inquiries to examine their innocence only. The Director-General of Police, Punjab referred to an instruction dated 04th May 2017 issued by Department of Home Affairs & Justice, Punjab to justify the entertainment of separate representations. Significantly, this notification gave officers higher in rank authorization to accept such representation(s) and for further entrustment of the same to the competent officer for inquiry/verification/examination of facts etc. Further, in the present cases, the Inquiry officers upon conclusion of the inquiries (pursuant to submission of representations), submitted their reports in favor of the accused (applicants), and that too without even examining the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In other words, the inquiry reports were subsequently decorated as supplementary reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and were placed before the trial Court. In this way, the trial Courts in both these cases were seized of two conflicting conclusions of investigation & inquiry carried by different functionaries of state police. Now, relying on these inquiry reports (subsequently decorated as supplementary reports under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C), the petitioners sought bail. Court's observations At the outset, the Court noted that in the garb of the instructions of 2017, the inquiry officers in criminal matters proceed with parallel investigation by recording statements of witnesses etc and submit their own independent report. "This procedure of inquiry has no legitimate sanctity to dislodge the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, but such reports certainly, add burden upon the judicial process of a criminal trial", said the Court. The Court also noted that through the 2017 instructions, the prosecuting agency of the state had injected elasticity in the field of investigation through the above instructions by over-riding the statutory provisions contained in Chapter XII of the Code and created ambiguity. The Court also noted that on numerous occasions, the accused persons, instead of even availing the remedy of anticipatory bail, applied for an inquiry and this phenomenon often interdicted the ongoing investigation in an offence. Significantly, the Court remarked, "Many a time, the investigating officer is not even aware of the process of simultaneous inquiry initiated by his superior officers. This kind of multiple probes complicates the task of the trial Court to trace the culprits…" In other words, the Court further added, "The innovation of parallel inquiry introduces the rule of audi alteram partem for an accused and that it creates a remedy during the pendency of the...

Parallel Inquiry During Investigation/After Submission Of Final Report: P&H High Court Quashes Govt's Direction

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags