Recently, in a case raising concerns over prolonged criminal investigations and the treatment of accused persons during interrogation, the Rajasthan High Court examined a five-year-old murder case that remained inconclusive despite the passage of substantial time. The Court was called upon to scrutinise both the pace of the investigation and allegations that the accused were being repeatedly summoned and made to remain at the police station for extended periods despite the absence of concrete evidence. The matter brought into focus the limits of investigative authority and the obligation of law enforcement agencies to conduct investigations fairly, expeditiously, and within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The controversy arose from two cross-petitions relating to an FIR registered for offences under Sections 365 and 302 of the IPC. One petition was filed by the accused persons seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that they had no involvement in the alleged offence and that no material connected them to the incident. They further alleged that, despite the absence of evidence, the Investigating Officer regularly summoned them to the police station and compelled them to remain there from morning until evening, causing humiliation and hardship.
At the same time, the complainant approached the Court seeking directions for a fair, impartial, and expeditious investigation, pointing out that the case had remained under investigation for more than five years without reaching any conclusion. During the hearing, the Investigating Officer informed the Court that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons and submitted that efforts to conduct a polygraph test could not materialise as the concerned accused had withheld consent. The officer further sought additional time to complete the investigation and place the final report before the competent court.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the investigation had progressed and emphasised that criminal investigations cannot remain pending indefinitely. The Court observed, “This Court is not satisfied with the investigation conducted so far by the Investigating Officer. More than five years have passed after registration of the impugned FIR. The Investigating Officer cannot be allowed to keep the investigation pending for an indefinite period and for infinite time.”
Stressing the statutory obligation imposed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court noted that the Investigating Officer was required to complete the investigation expeditiously and submit a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The Court also took serious note of the allegations regarding the treatment of the accused during the investigation and directed that they should not be subjected to unnecessary harassment. In a significant observation, the Court directed that while interrogation could be undertaken if required, the Investigating Officer “cannot be allowed in any case to call the accused persons at the Police Station and compel them to remain there from morning to evening, without being sure about any concrete evidence against them.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police to personally monitor the investigation, ensure that the accused were not harassed on the mere pretext of interrogation, and oversee the completion of the investigation in accordance with law. Both petitions were consequently disposed of.
Case Title: Gangasahay & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.10426/2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Umesh Vyas
Advocate for the Respondent: PP JS Rathore, Asstt. GA Gaurav Gupta, Adv. Meeta Pareek, Adv. O.P. Mishra, SI Manohar Lal
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
