No parallel probes in an FIR: HC to Punjab, Haryana, UT

The court has now directed that after registration of FIR and commencement of investigation, no representation/request on behalf of accused to examine his/her innocence would be entertained by police and no parallel inquiry would be initiated

The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed police of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh not to conduct parallel probes in an FIR.

No parallel probes in an FIR: HC to Punjab, Haryana, UT

The high court bench of justice Manoj Bajaj termed such inquiries by police officers sheer and blatant interference with the process of justice, which can’t stand the test of justification. “It is unfair for the prosecution also to forward inconsistent reports, expressing diverse opinions with respect to the same facts, and that too without any other material or evidence. Once the investigation is complete and report is submitted before the Court of law, police has no authority to deal with another line of inquiry, without intimating the court,” the bench observed striking down Punjab police instructions of May 4, 2017, which facilitated such probes further holding that the police officers of higher in rank have violated the procedural law of investigation contained in Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The court has now directed that after registration of FIR and commencement of investigation, no representation/request on behalf of accused to examine his/her innocence would be entertained by police and no parallel inquiry would be initiated. In cases, the state government or the state police orders transfer of investigation, then it would be necessary to intimate the magistrate in writing with reasons for transfer of investigation. Whenever, the investigating officer after commencement of investigation, decides to hold or stop the investigation in respect of all or any of the accused persons it would be mandatory for such officer to send the report to the concerned magistrate, it said adding that if, the trial court upon conclusion of trial finds that the acquittal of the accused is on account of deliberate lapses in investigation, it can pass appropriate orders for suitable departmental/penal action against the officers responsible.

The court said that both the governments and Chandigarh administration would ensure that the police officers and public prosecutors are properly sensitised about on this aspect.

The directions came when court was dealing with pleas filed by two accused from Punjab seeking bail. It had come before court that while probes into FIRs were underway. Either accused or someone from his side approached senior officers who ordered another probe. Without associating investigating officer assigned to the FIR earlier, parallel probes were conducted, which gave conflicting reports. In one case, chargesheet was filed against accused but after parallel probe, the accused was declared innocent.

“This kind of multiple probes complicate the task of trial court to trace the culprits, who often hide themselves behind the bushes of favourable inquiry reports, and at times they succeed in escaping the punishment, because the disintegrated procedure of investigation throws doubts on the prosecution case and makes it fragile. These procedures of investigation and inquiries are unheard in the annals of criminal jurisprudence and do not find support from statutory provisions,” the bench observed.

The court further said that the superior officers have the prerogative to transfer the investigation, if, there are justifiable reasons, but in such an eventuality the investigation is to be transferred as a ‘whole’. After transfer of probe, the newly appointed Investigating Officer or agency would continue the investigation from the stage of transfer, as fresh or de novo (from the beginning) investigation is not permissible in law, it added.

The court also noted that DGP Punjab submitted wrong information before the court when a report was sought from him. It said that DGP responded in a “casual and inattentive manner” without realizing its sensitivity. However, court refrained from making any other adverse observation further observing that it expects that in future the officer would act carefully. It further directed that copy of the judgment be sent to home secretaries and judicial officers in both the states and Chandigarh.