Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mr Lakhan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
1 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 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 24th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1713 of 2025
MR LAKHAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Monica Mishra - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
2023, has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime Number 392/2024 registered
at Police Station Banmore, District Morena (M.P.) for offences punishable under
Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023, and consequential
proceedings.
2. Challenging the aforesaid FIR, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that
the complainant lodged an FIR on the allegation that on 28.12.2024 at about 4:00
p.m., he was working in his field. At that time, cattle of Balu Gurjar entered in his
field. When he requested Balu to remove his cattle, otherwise they would destroy
the entire crop, then Balu Gurjar, Rajveer, Kalla and Lakhan (applicant) started
abusing him filthily in the name of mother and sister and challenged that their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
2 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
cattle would graze in the field of complainant and he would not be able to do
anything. When he objected to their abuses, then it is alleged that Balu gave a
lathi blow on his head, Rajveer gave a lathi blow on his right shoulder, Kalla
threw him on the ground, and applicant Lakhan gave a lathi blow on his back.
After hearing his shouts, his elder brother Surendra and Mukesh came on the spot
and intervened in the matter. With aforesaid allegations, FIR was lodged.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that FIR is the result of personal
enmity and vendetta. Applicant was not present at the time of the incident. He was
going to the house of his friend Deepak, which is located in tempo stand lane,
Kushwaha Market. The CCTV cameras installed in the residence of Mitthan
Singh Fauji clearly indicates the presence of applicant in the house of his friend.
The tower location of applicant’s mobile number further corroborates his presence
at a place which was far away from the alleged scene of the crime. Although
applicant had made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police but no heed was
paid.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.
5. During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by counsel for
applicant that date and time in the CCTV footage is manually fed, and therefore it
can be manipulated at any point of time.
The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Pal v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 749 has held as under :
25. At this juncture, we think it apt to deal with the plea of alibi that has
been put forth by the appellant. As is demonstrable, the trial court has
discarded the plea of alibi. When a plea of alibi is taken by an accused,
burden is upon him to establish the same by positive evidence after onus
as regards presence on the spot is established by the prosecution. In this
context, we may profitably reproduce a few paragraphs from Binay
Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar: (SCC p. 293, paras 22-23)
“22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or
general) envisaged in the Penal Code, 1860 or any other law. It is only a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18403 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts
which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (a)
given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context:
‘(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a
certain day. The fact that, on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.’
23. The Latin word alibi means ‘elsewhere’ and that word is used for
convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when
the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of
occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have
participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in
which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to another
person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was
present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would
not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused has adopted the
defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be
considered only when the burden has been discharged by the
prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in
discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the
plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the
possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the
presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established
satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the
court would be slow to believe any counter-evidence to the effect that he
was elsewhere when the occurrence happened. But if the evidence
adduced by the accused is of such a quality and of such a standard that
the court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence
at the scene when the occurrence took place, the accused would, no
doubt, be entitled to the benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that
purpose, it would be a sound proposition to be laid down that, in such
circumstances, the burden on the accused is rather heavy. It follows,
therefore, that strict proof is required for establishing the plea of alibi.”
(emphasis supplied)
The said principle has been reiterated in Gurpreet Singh v. State of
Haryana, Sk. Sattar v. State of Maharashtra and Jitender Kumar v.
State of Haryana.
The Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Sattar v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (2010) 8 SCC 430 has held as under :
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
4 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
35. Undoubtedly, the burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon
the appellant. The appellant herein has miserably failed to bring on
record any facts or circumstances which would make the plea of his
absence even probable, let alone, being proved beyond reasonable
doubt. The plea of alibi had to be proved with absolute certainty so as to
completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the appellant in the
rented premises at the relevant time. When a plea of alibi is raised by an
accused it is for the accused to establish the said plea by positive
evidence which has not been led in the present case. We may also notice
here at this stage the proposition of law laid down in Gurpreet Singh v.
State of Haryana as follows: (SCC p. 27, para 20)
“20. … This plea of alibi stands disbelieved by both the courts and since
the plea of alibi is a question of fact and since both the courts
concurrently found that fact against the appellant, the accused, this
Court in our view, cannot on an appeal by special leave go behind the
abovenoted concurrent finding of fact.”
36. But it is also correct that, even though the plea of alibi of the
appellant is not established, it was for the prosecution to prove the case
against the appellant. To this extent, the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant was correct. The failure of the plea of alibi
would not necessarily lead to the success of the prosecution case which
has to be independently proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt. Being aware of the aforesaid principle of law, the trial court as
also the High Court examined the circumstantial evidence to exclude the
possibility of the innocence of the appellant.
The Supreme Court in the case of Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar,
reported in (1997) 1 SCC 283 has held as under:
22. We must bear in mind that an alibi is not an exception (special or
general) envisaged in the Indian Penal Code or any other law. It is only a
rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that facts
which are inconsistent with the fact in issue are relevant. Illustration (a)
given under the provision is worth reproducing in this context:
“The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain
date; the fact that on that date, A was at Lahore is relevant.”
23. The Latin word alibi means “elsewhere” and that word is used for
convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that
when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
5 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have
participated in the crime. It is a basic law that in a criminal case, in
which the accused is alleged to have inflicted physical injury to
another person, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the
accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime.
The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused
has adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases
need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the
prosecution satisfactorily. But once the prosecution succeeds in
discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the
plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the
possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the
presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been
established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable
evidence, normally the court would be slow to believe any counter-
evidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence
happened. But if the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a
quality and of such a standard that the court may entertain some
reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the scene when the
occurrence took place, the accused would, no doubt, be entitled to the
benefit of that reasonable doubt. For that purpose, it would be a sound
proposition to be laid down that, in such circumstances, the burden on
the accused is rather heavy. It follows, therefore, that strict proof is
required for establishing the plea of alibi. This Court has observed so
on earlier occasions (vide Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.; State of
Maharashtra v. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple.”
Thus, it is clear that so far as defence of plea of alibi is concerned, it is required
to be proved by leading cogent evidence and it cannot be proved by
preponderance of probabilities.
6. So far as the mobile location of applicant is concerned, merely because the
tower may show the location of the mobile at a different place, it would not mean
that applicant was also present at the said place. The location of a mobile merely
shows the location of that mobile, and no inference can be drawn that even the
owner of the said mobile was also present there. An intelligent person may give
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
6 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
his mobile to an unscrupulous person with a direction to go to a different place so
that a false defence of mobile location can be created.
7. So far as the complaint made by applicant to the Superintendent of Police is
concerned, counsel for applicant could not point out the right of accused to get the
investigation done in a particular manner.
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 offence
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 mustSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18407 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
8 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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 instil
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 withSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18409 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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
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…………………”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
10 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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 investigation
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:184011 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
12 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
13 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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
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) „
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1840
14 M.Cr.C. No. 1713 of 2025
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.”
This Court in the case of Prabal Dogra vs. Superintendent of Police,
Gwalior and State of M.P. by order dated 30.11.2017 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.10446/2017 has held that accused has no say in the matter of
investigation.
8. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.
Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 2/4/2025
6:31:40 AM
[ad_1]
Source link