Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Goverdhan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4220/2022
Decided On : 17-08-2022
Inherent Jurisdiction - Custodial Interrogation - IPC - RTI Act - Arms Act - Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - [IPC Sections 384, 500, 501, 506, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 196, 198, 200, 323, 341, 415, 416, 417, 419, 504, 353, 489D, 292, 119, 120B, 192, Arms Act Section 3, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 Sections 4/6] - The court discussed the necessity of custodial interrogation in relation to multiple FIRs, the requirement of petitioner's handwriting and signatures, and the legitimacy of the state's request for custodial interrogation. The court concluded that custodial interrogation was not necessary in one FIR but allowed three days' custodial interrogation in another FIR, with the provision for the state to obtain the petitioner's specimen signatures and handwriting during the custody.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner approached the Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction with a grievance regarding the Investigating Officer obtaining a production warrant for his custody in relation to multiple FIRs. The Superintendent of Police filed an additional affidavit stating the need for custodial interrogation in relation to several FIRs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that custodial interrogation was not necessary in one FIR but allowed three days' custodial interrogation in another FIR, with the provision for the state to obtain the petitioner's specimen signatures and handwriting during the custody.
Issues: The main issue was the necessity of custodial interrogation in relation to multiple FIRs and the legitimacy of the state's request for custodial interrogation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that custodial interrogation was not necessary in one FIR but allowed three days' custodial interrogation in another FIR, considering the allegations and the requirement for the petitioner's handwriting and signatures.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by allowing three days' custodial interrogation in one FIR and directing the state to obtain the petitioner's specimen signatures and handwriting during the custody.
ORDER
1. On 19.07.2022, this Court had passed the following order:-
"1. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction with a grievance that the Investigating Officer has obtained production warrant for his custody in relation to FIR No.99/2011, registered at Police Station Sadar Bikaner, District Bikaner.
2. While highlighting that multiple FIRs were registered against the petitioner and negative Final Report had been filed, learned counsel submits that the state machinery has suddenly sprung into action vindictively and similar applications are likely to be filed by the Investigating Officer in other FIRs, in which leave/permission of conducting further investigation have been obtained.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Bikaner is directed to file a reply categorically indicating therein as to whether the police intends to carry out further investigation in relation to other FIRs lodged against the petitioner in which Final Reports have been filed and if yes, whether they need custodial investigation/production warrant?
4. List this case on 25.07.2022.
5. Till then, any production warrant, qua the petitioner shall not be given effect to"
2. In furtherance of the directions given by this Court on 19.07.2022, the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner has filed an additional affidavit, inter-alia, stating that as of today investigation in relation to following FIRs is to be made:
"(i). FIR No.44/2010, registered at Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 384, 500, 501, 506 & 201 of IPC.
(ii). FIR No.99/2011, registered at Police Station - Sadar, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.
(iii). FIR No.182/2022, registered at Police Station - Sadar, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 196, 198 & 200 of IPC and Section 3 of the Arms Act.
(iv). FIR No.24/2010, registered at Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner. Offence under Section 384 IPC.
(v). FIR No.39/2010, registered at Police Station Kotgate, Bikaner. Offences under Sections 384, 415, 416, 417, 419, 504, 353, 489D, 292, 119, 120B & 192 IPC and 4/6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
(vi). FIR No.387/2014, registered at Police Station Sadar Bikaner. Offences under Sections 341 & 323 IPC."
3. It is stated that out of above FIRs the Investigating Officer needs petitioner’s custodial interrogation for five days each in relation to FIR No.99/2011, registered at P.S. Sadar Bikaner, District Bikaner and the FIR No.44/2010, registered at P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner.
4. Mr. Devendra Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the contents of the FIR and argued that so far as FIR No.99/2011, P.S. Sadar Bikaner is concerned, the only allegation levelled is, that the petitioner had earlier filed an RTI application under his name and signatures and when he was asked to deposit requisite fee for providing copies under the Right to Information Act, he moved another application in the name of one Bhanwar Singh - a person hailing from Below Poverty Line (BPL) category.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate and give sample/specimen of his handwriting and signatures and hence his custody is not needed for such purpose.
6. He submitted that FIR No.44/2010, registered at P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner involves the allegation that the petitioner had filed as many as 88 complaints in various Departments against the complainant. While maintaining that the petitioner had not sent those letters/complaints, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if assertion of the complainant is taken to be correct, his custodial interrogation is not required as no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner.
7. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the respondent State submitted that the Superintendent of Police has thoroughly examined the matter and has found that out of the above referre
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in allowing custodial interrogation based on the necessity and legitimacy of the state's request.
No exceptions can be made to the statutory provisions under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Police custody after the expiry of the initial 15 days is not permissible, a....
Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours - No power to extend period prescribed in Section 167 for completing investigation on any grounds, even in name of COVID-19 pande....
The court emphasized the importance of balancing the requirements of investigation with the necessity for custodial interrogation, and highlighted the need for a responsible approach to custodial int....
The trial Court has the discretion to permit further investigation without providing detailed reasons, and the need for further investigation can be justified based on the quality of previous investi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
