Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrabhan Singh Bhadoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
1 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12930 of 2025
CHANDRABHAN SINGH BHADORIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D. R. Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, has been filed for
quashment of FIR in Crime No.63 of 2025 registered at Police Station Gole Ka
Mandir, Gwalior (M.P.) for offences under Sections 74, 75, 76, 296 and 351(3)
B.N.S., 2023.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that after the FIR was lodged,
applicant made an application to Superintendent of Police, Incharge SHO, as well
as I.G. Police for conducting a free and fair investigation, but free and fair
investigation has not been done so far. It is submitted that the FIR has been
lodged on the false ground that applicant is teasing his own daughter-in-law. It
was falsely alleged that on 13.02.2025 at about 10-11 p.m., applicant
Chandrabhan tried to hug his daughter-in-law and also offered that she should
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
2 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
sleep with him for once. It was wrongly alleged that not only the applicant pulled
the complainant towards himself but had also torn her clothes and teased her.
Somehow, complainant succeeded in getting rid from the clutches of applicant
and thereafter applicant extended a threat. It is submitted that, in fact, applicant
has retired from the post of Sub-Inspector Police, and since daughter-in-law, his
son, as well as parents of daughter-in-law had demanded the amount which he
had received after retirement but the same was not given, therefore a false FIR
has been lodged.
3. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
4. It is well-established principle of law that this Court can quash the FIR only
if un-controverted allegations do not make out a cognizable offence.
5. The three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021) 19 SCC
401 has held as under :
13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of
the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, the following principles of
law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV
of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable
offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any
kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit
an investigation to go on.
13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. (The rarest of rare cases
standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to
be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of
the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought,
the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
3 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity
than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of
the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however,
recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the
process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary,
not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not
interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or
caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must
disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not
go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted
to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve
to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During
or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating
officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment
of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and
more diligent duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being
had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law,
more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur
and BhajanLal, has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged
accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC,
only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose
the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
4 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not
and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate
the allegations in the FIR.
6. Even otherwise in the light of judgments passed by the Supreme Court in
the cases of XYZ v. State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 10 SCC 337, State of
Tamil Nadu Vs. S. Martin & Ors. reported in (2018) 5 SCC 718, Ajay Kumar
Das v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 319, Mohd. Akram
Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350, State of A.P. v.
Gourishetty Mahesh reported in (2010) 11 SCC 226, M. Srikanth v. State of
Telangana, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 373, CBI v. Arvind Khanna reported in
(2019) 10 SCC 686, State of MP Vs. Kunwar Singh by order dated 30.06.2021
passed in Cr.A. No.709/2021, Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in
(2018) 5 SCC 678, Teeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 15 SCC
221, State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547, S.
Khushboo v. Kanniammal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Sangeeta Agrawal v.
State of U.P., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 336, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, Padal Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. Kovuri
Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2012) 12 SCC 437 and M.N. Ojha v. Alok
Kumar Srivastav reported in (2009) 9 SCC 682, this Court can quash the
proceedings only if the uncontroverted allegations do not make out an offence.
7. The gist of FIR has already been reproduced in the previous paragraphs.
There are specific allegations against applicant that not only he was teasing his
own daughter-in-law, but on 13.2.2025 he also tried to hug her and made an
indecent proposal that she should sleep with him and had also torn her clothes.
Whether the defence taken by applicant is correct or false cannot be adjudicated
by this Court while exercising power under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023.
8. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that the police
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
5 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
Authorities may be directed to consider the complaint made by applicant and
conduct investigation accordingly.
9. Considered the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for applicant.
The moot question for consideration is as to whether the
accused/suspect has any right to interfere with the investigation or has any
right to seek a direction for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter
in a particular manner?
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Romila Thapar and others vs. Union of
India and others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 has held as under:-
“23. After having given our anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and upon perusing the pleadings and documents
produced by both the sides, coupled with the fact that now four
named accused have approached this Court and have asked for being
transposed as writ petitioners, the following broad points may arise
for our consideration:
23.1. (i) Should the investigating agency be changed at the behest of
the named five accused?
23.2. (ii) If the answer to Point (i) is in the negative, can a prayer of
the same nature be entertained at the behest of the next friend of the
accused or in the garb of PIL?
23.3. (iii) If the answer to Questions (i) and/or (ii) above, is in the
affirmative, have the petitioners made out a case for the relief of
appointing Special Investigating Team or directing the court-
monitored investigation by an independent investigating agency?
23.4. (iv) Can the accused person be released merely on the basis of
the perception of his next friend (writ petitioners) that he is an
innocent and law abiding person?
24. Turning to the first point, we are of the considered opinion that
the issue is no more res integra. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat,
in para 64, this Court restated that it is trite law that the accused
persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of
investigating agency. Further, the accused persons cannot choose as
to which investigating agency must investigate the offenceSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:73806 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
committed by them. Para 64 of this decision reads thus: (SCC p. 100)
“64. … It is trite law that the accused persons do not
have a say in the matter of appointment of an
investigating agency. The accused persons cannot
choose as to which investigating agency must
investigate the alleged offence committed by them.”
(emphasis supplied)
25. Again in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India, the Court
restated that the accused had no right with reference to the manner of
investigation or mode of prosecution. Para 68 of this judgment reads
thus: (SCC p. 40)
“68. The accused has no right with reference to the
manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Similar
is the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v.
W.N. Chadha, Mayawati v. Union of India, Dinubhai
Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, CBI v. Rajesh
Gandhi, CCI v. SAIL and Janata Dal v. H.S.
Chowdhary.”
(emphasis supplied)
26. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in E. Sivakumar v.
Union of India, while dealing with the appeal preferred by the
“accused” challenging the order of the High Court directing
investigation by CBI, in para 10 observed: (SCC pp. 370-71)
“10. As regards the second ground urged by the
petitioner, we find that even this aspect has been duly
considered in the impugned judgment. In para 129 of
the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat,
wherein it has been held that in a writ petition seeking
impartial investigation, the accused was not entitled to
opportunity of hearing as a matter of course. Reliance
has also been placed on Narender G. Goel v. State of
Maharashtra, in particular, para 11 of the reported
decision wherein the Court observed that it is well
settled that the accused has no right to be heard at the
stage of investigation. By entrusting the investigation to
CBI which, as aforesaid, was imperative in the peculiar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
7 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
facts of the present case, the fact that the petitioner was
not impleaded as a party in the writ petition or for that
matter, was not heard, in our opinion, will be of no
avail. That per se cannot be the basis to label the
impugned judgment as a nullity.”
27. This Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, has
enunciated that the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
cannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint
an investigating officer of its own choice to investigate into a crime
on whatsoever basis. The Court made it amply clear that neither the
accused nor the complainant or informant are entitled to choose their
own investigating agency, to investigate the crime, in which they are
interested. The Court then went on to clarify that the High Court in
exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution can
always issue appropriate directions at the instance of the aggrieved
person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation
has been exercised by the investigating officer mala fide.
28. Be that as it may, it will be useful to advert to the exposition in
State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors.13 In paragraph 70 of the
said decision, the Constitution Bench observed thus:
“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary
to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by
Articles 32 13 (2010) 3 SCC 571 38 and 226 of the
Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must
bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the
exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very
plenitude of the power under the said articles requires
great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of
issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in
a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines
can be laid down to decide whether or not such power
should be exercised but time and again it has been
reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a
matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled
some allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,
cautiously and in exceptional situations where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility and instilSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:73808 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
confidence in investigations or where the incident may
have national and international ramifications or where
such an order may be necessary for doing complete
justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise
the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases
and with limited resources, may find it difficult to
properly investigate even serious cases and in the
process lose its credibility and purpose with
unsatisfactory investigations.”
29. In the present case, except pointing out some circumstances to
question the manner of arrest of the five named accused sans any
legal evidence to link them with the crime under investigation, no
specific material facts and particulars are found in the petition about
mala fide exercise of power by the investigating officer. A vague and
unsubstantiated assertion in that regard is not enough. 39 Rather,
averment in the petition as filed was to buttress the reliefs initially
prayed (mentioned in para 7 above) – regarding the manner in which
arrest was made. Further, the plea of the petitioners of lack of
evidence against the named accused (A16 to A20) has been seriously
disputed by the Investigating Agency and have commended us to the
material already gathered during the ongoing investigation which
according to them indicates complicity of the said accused in the
commission of crime. Upon perusal of the said material, we are of
the considered opinion that it is not a case of arrest because of mere
dissenting views expressed or difference in the political ideology of
the named accused, but concerning their link with the members of
the banned organization and its activities. This is not the stage where
the efficacy of the material or sufficiency thereof can be evaluated
nor it is possible to enquire into whether the same is genuine or
fabricated. We do not wish to dilate on this matter any further lest it
would cause prejudice to the named accused and including the co-
accused who are not before the Court. Admittedly, the named
accused have already resorted to legal 40 remedies before the
jurisdictional Court and the same are pending. If so, they can avail of
such remedies as may be permissible in law before the jurisdictional
courts at different stages during the investigation as well as the trial
of the offence under investigation. During the investigation, when
they would be produced before the Court for obtaining remand by
the Police or by way of application for grant of bail, and if they are
so advised, they can also opt for remedy of discharge at the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
9 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
appropriate stage or quashing of criminal case if there is no legal
evidence, whatsoever, to indicate their complicity in the subject
crime.
30. In view of the above, it is clear that the consistent view of this
Court is that the accused cannot ask for changing the Investigating
Agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for
Court monitored investigation…………………”
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State
of Gujarat, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 626 has held as under:-
“50. In W.N. Chadha [Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4)
SCC 260 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 1171] , the High Court had quashed and
set aside the order passed by the Special Judge in charge of CBI
matters issuing the order rogatory, on the application of a named
accused in the FIR, Mr W.N. Chadha. The High Court held that the
order issuing letter rogatory was passed in breach of principles of
natural justice. In appeal, this Court held as follows: (SCC pp. 290-
91 & 293, paras 89, 92 & 98)
“89. Applying the above principle, it may be held that
when the investigating officer is not deciding any matter
except collecting the materials for ascertaining whether
a prima facie case is made out or not and a full enquiry
in case of filing a report under Section 173(2) follows in
a trial before the Court or Tribunal pursuant to the filing
of the report, it cannot be said that at that stage rule of
audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation to issue
a prior notice and hear the accused which the statute
does not expressly recognise. The question is not
whether audi alteram partem is implicit, but whether the
occasion for its attraction exists at all.
***
92. More so, the accused has no right to have any say as
regards the manner and method of investigation. Save
under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the
Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of
right during the course of the investigation of a case
instituted on a police report till the investigationSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:738010 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
culminates in filing of a final report under Section
173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted
otherwise than on a police report till the process is
issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may
be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is
taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said
offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively
by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to
have participation till the process is issued. In case the
issue of process is postponed as contemplated under
Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the
subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are
various judicial pronouncements to this effect but we
feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those
decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out
that there are certain provisions under the Code
empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of
being heard under certain specified circumstances.
***
98. If prior notice and an opportunity of hearing are to
be given to an accused in every criminal case before
taking any action against him, such a procedure would
frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt
action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and
make the provisions of law relating to the investigation
lifeless, absurd and selfdefeating. Further, the scheme of
the relevant statutory provisions relating to the
procedure of investigation does not attract such a course
in the absence of any statutory obligation to the
contrary.”
These observations make it abundantly clear that it would not be
necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused
as a matter of course. The Court cautioned that if prior notice and an
opportunity of hearing have to be given in every criminal case before
taking any action against the accused person, it would frustrate the
entire objective of an effective investigation. In the present case, the
appellant was not even an accused at the time when the impugned
order was passed by the High Court. Finger of suspicion had been
pointed at the appellant by independent witnesses as well as by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
11 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
grieved father of the victim.
51. In Rajesh Gandhi case [CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996) 11 SCC
253 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 88] , this Court again reiterated the law as
follows: (SCC pp. 256- 57, para 8)
“8. There is no merit in the pleas raised by the first
respondent either. The decision to investigate or the
decision on the agency which should investigate, does
not attract principles of natural justice. The accused
cannot have a say in who should investigate the
offences he is charged with. We also fail to see any
provision of law for recording reasons for such a
decision. … There is no provision in law under which,
while granting consent or extending the powers and
jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to
the specified State and to any specified case any reasons
are required to be recorded on the face of the
notification. The learned Single Judge of the Patna High
Court was clearly in error in holding so. If investigation
by the local police is not satisfactory, a further
investigation is not precluded. In the present case the
material on record shows that the investigation by the
local police was not satisfactory. In fact the local police
had filed a final report before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dhanbad. The report, however, was pending
and had not been accepted when the Central
Government with the consent of the State Government
issued the impugned notification. As a result, CBI has
been directed to further investigate the offences
registered under the said FIR with the consent of the
State Government and in accordance with law. Under
Section 173(8) CrPC, 1973 also, there is an analogous
provision for further investigation in respect of an
offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been
forwarded to the Magistrate.”
The aforesaid observations would clearly support the course adopted
by the High Court in this matter. We have earlier noticed that the
High Court had initially directed that the investigation be carried
under the supervision of the Special Commissioner of Police, Crime
Branch, of the rank of the Additional Director General of Police. It
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
12 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
was only when the High Court was of the opinion that even further
investigation was not impartial, it was transferred to CBI.
52. Again in Sri Bhagwan Samardha [Sri Bhagwan Samardha
Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P.,
(1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047] , this Court observed as
follows: (SCC pp. 742-43, paras 10-11)
“10. Power of the police to conduct further
investigation, after laying final report, is recognised
under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Even after the court took cognizance of any
offence on the strength of the police report first
submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further
investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC
322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] . The only rider provided by
the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that
the police should inform the court and seek formal
permission to make further investigation.
11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct
the police to conduct further investigation cannot have
any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to
suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused
before any such direction is made. Casting of any such
obligation on the court would only result in
encumbering the court with the burden of searching for
all the potential accused to be afforded with the
opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require
it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an
obligation.”
These observations also make it clear that there was no
obligation for the High Court to either hear or to make
the appellant a party to the proceedings before directing
that the investigation be conducted by CBI.
53. We had earlier noticed that the High Court had come to the prima
facie conclusion that the investigation conducted by the police was
with the motive to give a clean chit to the appellant, in spite of the
statements made by the independent witnesses as well as the
allegations made by the father of the deceased. The legal position has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
13 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
been reiterated by this Court in Narender G. Goel [Narender G.
Goel v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 65 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri)
933] : (SCC pp. 68-69, paras 11-13)
“11. It is well settled that the accused has no right to be
heard at the stage of investigation. The prosecution will
however have to prove its case at the trial when the
accused will have full opportunity to rebut/question the
validity and authenticity of the prosecution case. In Sri
Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata
Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P. [Sri Bhagwan
Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha
Maharaj v. State of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 1047] this Court observed: (SCC p. 743, para 11) „
11. … There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest
that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any
such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation
on the court would only result in encumbering the court
with the burden of searching for all the potential
accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being
heard.‟
12. The accused can certainly avail himself of an
opportunity to cross-examine and/or otherwise
controvert the authenticity, admissibility or legal
significance of material evidence gathered in the course
of further investigations. Further in light of the views
expressed by the investigating officer in his affidavit
before the High Court, it is apparent that the
investigating authorities would inevitably have
conducted further investigation with the aid of CFS
under Section 173(8) of the Code.
13. We are of the view that what is the evidentiary value
can be tested during the trial. At this juncture it would
not be proper to interfere in the matter.”
Thus, it is clear that the accused has no right to seek any direction from the
Court to investigate the matter in a particular manner. This court, while exercising
power under section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, cannot supervise the investigation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7380
14 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal
Secretary and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 has held as under:
“38. The monitoring of investigations/inquiries by the Court is intended
to ensure that proper progress takes place without directing or
channelling the mode or manner of investigation. The whole idea is to
retain public confidence in the impartial inquiry/investigation into the
alleged crime; that inquiry/investigation into every accusation is made
on a reasonable basis irrespective of the position and status of that
person and the inquiry/investigation is taken to the logical conclusion
in accordance with law. The monitoring by the Court aims to lend
credence to the inquiry/investigation being conducted by CBI as
premier investigating agency and to eliminate any impression of bias,
lack of fairness and objectivity therein.
39. However, the investigation/inquiry monitored by the court does not
mean that the court supervises such investigation/inquiry. To supervise
would mean to observe and direct the execution of a task whereas to
monitor would only mean to maintain surveillance. The concern and
interest of the court in such “Court-directed” or “Courtmonitored” cases
is that there is no undue delay in the investigation, and the investigation
is conducted in a free and fair manner with no external interference. In
such a process, the people acquainted with facts and circumstances of
the case would also have a sense of security and they would cooperate
with the investigation given that the superior courts are seized of the
matter. We find that in some cases, the expression “Courtmonitored”
has been interchangeably used with “Court-supervised investigation”
Once the court supervises an investigation, there is hardly anything left
in the trial. Under the Code, the investigating officer is only to form an
opinion and it is for the court to ultimately try the case based on the
opinion formed by the investigating officer and see whether any
offence has been made out. If a superior court supervises the
investigation and thus facilitates the formulation of such opinion in the
form of a report under Section 173(2) of the Code, it will be difficult if
not impossible for the trial court to not be influenced or bound by such
opinion. Then trial becomes a farce. Therefore, supervision of
investigation by any court is a contradiction in terms. The Code does
not envisage such a procedure, and it cannot either. In the rare and
compelling circumstances referred to above, the superior courts may
monitor an investigation to ensure that the investigating agencySignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:738015 M.Cr.C. No.12930 of 2025
conducts the investigation in a free, fair and time-bound manner
without any external interference.”
13. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
of considered opinion that since the FIR lodged by complainant discloses
commission of cognizable offence, therefore, no case is made out warranting
interference. Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 4/1/2025
7:27:03 PM
[ad_1]
Source link