Investigation Is Exclusive Domain Of Investigating Officer, Courts Can’t Supervise Investigation: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that investigation is the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer and the Court cannot direct police authorities to investigate the matter in a certain manner that too at the instance of accused as it cannot supervise the investigation.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned FIR.
The bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “Investigation is exclusively within the domain of the Investigating Officer. In case, if the closure report is filed, then the Magistrate has a right to direct for further investigation pointing out certain lapses but during the investigation, this Court is not expected to interfere in the investigation….this Court cannot direct the police authorities to investigate the matter a particular manner and that too at the instance of the petitioner as this Court cannot supervise the investigation.”
Advocate Anil Lala appeared for the Appellant and Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguli appeared for the Respondents.
It is the case of the Petitioner that an FIR was registered against him based on fabricated documents and therefore the FIR is liable to be quashed. He submitted that he has also approached police authorities pointing out the discrepancies but the police are not properly investigating the matter.
While looking into the question of whether the suspect has any right to get the investigation done in a particular manner the Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Romila Thapar and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 and quoted, “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.”
The Court also answered the question whether it can supervise the investigation or not and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 and quoted, “…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 "Court-monitored" 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.”
While emphasising that there is a distinction between monitoring and supervision the Court observed, “The moment this Court interferes with the investigation by issuing certain directions, then it would come within the purview of supervision, which is not permissible under the law.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Sant Kumar Patel v. State of M.P.
