Delhi High Court
Prerna Singh vs State on 5 December, 2019
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05.12.2019
+ CRL.M.C. 2601/2019
PRERNA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Prashant with Mr. Prithvi Raj,
Advs.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. K.K. Ghei, APP for State
SI Parnesh Lamba, PS South Campus
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to
quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in criminal
case No.58944/2016 and FIR No. 520/2015 dated 10.09.2015 under section
3 of The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 before the
learned CMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
2. It is not in dispute that the complainant and the IO in the present case
is the same officer and as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
complainant has investigated the case and if he makes deposition before the
court then the conviction will be in his credit. However, the complainant
being the IO of the case is against the natural justice and fair trial.
3. Similar issue came before this Court in Crl.M.C. 4544/2019 decided
on 03.12.2019 wherein, the complainant was a police officer who himself
investigated the present case and filed chargesheet. This court held, it is
well-settled law that the complainant and IO cannot be the same, however,
in the present case, also it happened. Thus, the chargesheet, in the present
case, suffers from defects and the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the
offences mentioned in the chargesheet.
4. In case of Babu Bhai vs. State of Gujarat: 2002 (12) SCC 254 has
held as under:-
"The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious
so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence
and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to
its genuineness. The Investigating Officer "is not to
bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may
enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the
real unvarnished truth"
5. In the State of Bihar vs. P P Sharma: 1991 AIR 1260, it was
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that :-
"Investigation is a delicate painstaking and dextrous
process. Ethical conduct is absolutely essential for
investigative professionalism.... Therefore, before
countenancing such allegations of mala fides or bias it is
salutary and an onerous duty and responsibility of the
court, not only to insist upon making specific and definite
allegations of personal animosity against the
Investigating Officer at the start of the investigation but
also must insist to establish and prove them from the facts
and circumstances to the satisfaction of the court...."
6. It is observed in State vs. Rajangam: (2010) 15 SCC 369 that the
accused preferred an appeal before the High Court by stating that the officer
who had registered the crime, also investigated the said case. According to
the submission advanced on behalf of the accused, the crime ought to have
been investigated by another independent officer and not by P.W.6
(complainant). Accordingly, the High Court found substance in the
submission and acquitted the accused.
7. In Laltu Prasad vs. State of West Bengal: 2017(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)
237 (Calcutta) (DB), held that the complainant himself acted as the
investigating officer by violating the principles of fair and impartial
investigation, but should not be resorted to and it is a disturbing feature.
8. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts of the present case and the
settled position of law, I hereby quash the in criminal case No.58944/2016
and FIR No. 520/2015 dated 10.09.2015 under section 3 of The Delhi
Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 and emanating proceedings
thereto qua the petitioner.
9. The petition is allowed and disposed of.
10. Order dasti.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 05, 2019
ms
