- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Police Cannot "Quick Fix" Facts...
Police Cannot "Quick Fix" Facts Into Its Viewpoint Of Accusation: JKL High Court On Rape Investigation In Criminal Intimidation Complaint
Basit Amin Makhdoomi
1 Dec 2022 9:00 AM GMT
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Tuesday called out the "Quick Fixes" resorted to by the police during criminal investigations, holding that investigations must be conducted within the domain of "Facts in Issue" and "Relevant Facts".A single bench comprising Justices Rahul Bharti observed,"Police Investigation acts with relish to exhibit its harassment bearing power...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Tuesday called out the "Quick Fixes" resorted to by the police during criminal investigations, holding that investigations must be conducted within the domain of "Facts in Issue" and "Relevant Facts".
A single bench comprising Justices Rahul Bharti observed,
"Police Investigation acts with relish to exhibit its harassment bearing power of investigation aiming more to quick fix the facts into its view point of accusation but faintly knows the province of investigation out of which the full facts are to be drawn out to prove the script of the crime in all its details...If a given Police Investigation has least bothered to follow the script of said two domains, then in the name of Police Investigation what is taking place would be nothing but paper collection and compilation venture by the Investigation Officer so as to claim the service credit of having prepared and submitted a police report/challan in a court of law unmindful of its soundness and sustainability in a court of law."
The Court was dealing with a quashing petition filed by one Ajay Partap booked under Sections 366 and 506 IPC for abduction and criminal intimidation. As per the complainant, the accused forced her into a vehicle and forcefully took her signature on a Marriage Agreement under coercion and threats. The complaint specifically mentioned that no 'physical contact' was made.
The petitioner (accused) contended that the marital ties were forged on the free will of both the parties and they even got a marriage agreement executed and duly notarized accompanied with solemnization of marriage taking place in Arya Samaj Mandir.
On perusal of the challan, the court noted that offences under Section 376 (rape) IPC had been added against the petitioner, as if presenting a woman as being a victim of rape is a "matter of ritual and routine" for the Police. It said that the perusal of the contents of the complaint by no stretch of reading and reference hints at any act of omission or commission against the petitioner amounting or attempting outraging the modesty of the complainant, lest that of subjecting her to an offence of rape.
"Now, in case the investigation was to attend to offence of rape under section 376 IPC as per the said 164 Cr.P.C statement, it was expected of the Investigation Officer to have carried forward his investigation to each and every aspect of the accusation related to said offence. Nothing of that sort was ever examined and done by the Investigating Officer", the bench added.
Bringing to fore the callous approach of the Investigation officer in the matter the bench observed,
"Thus, without any addition of facts being brought on record on the basis of an investigation with respect to the alleged event of so-called commission of rape of the respondent 2, the Investigating Officer concerned did the paper work in the name of the investigation for the purpose of booking the petitioner for the commission of offence of rape as well" said the court.
Deliberating further on the matter Justice Bharti observed that the act of translation of complaint from section 366 IPC to a case of rape under Section 376 is nothing but a "flight of fancy" on the part of the Investigating Officer of the case, in which the Investigating Officer concerned was least sensitive even to the very social and personal reputation of the complainant.
In its concluding remarks the bench observed that in the name of the investigation in the present case, only an empty formality has been carried out by the Investigation Officer/s leaving the truth of the case a casualty. Hence it quashed the FIR.
Case Title : Ajay Pratap Vs UT of J&K and Ors.
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 229
Coram : Justice Rahul Bharti
Counsel For Petitioner : Mr Abhinav Sharma Sr Adv
Counsel For Respondent : Mr Sumeet Bhatia GA
