Courts can issue directions for fresh or de novo investigation if the investigation is unfair or tainted, to discover the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice.

Sujoy Paul, J.

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Superintendent of Police/respondent No. 2 to re-investigate the matter on the basis of video footage so that it can be ascertained as to who was driving the vehicle Tata Safari MP49-C-3627. In addition, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to take departmental action against the owner of the vehicle because a blue flasher light and police logo was used in the said vehicle.

2. Briefly stated, facts are that a "Dehati Nalish" was submitted before Police Station Stationganj, Narsinghpur on 03.05.2015. The complainant Rajesh in the said Nalish, stated that he was standing with his brother Sunil Patel near a Beetle Shop at Narogaon at 4:40 pm at that time the petitioner's son Mohit Patel was coming from his agricultural field and was crossing the road. The said vehicle Tata Safari MP49-C-3627 dashed him and ran away. Because of rash and negligent driving of said vehicle and the accident arising W.P. No. 14071 of 2015 thereto, Mohit Patel sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. He was only seven years of age.

3. The police registered F.I.R. No. 0480/15 on the basis of said information against the driver of Vehicle No. MP49-C-3627 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC.

4. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police investigated the matter during which witnesses have deposed that Mohit was dashed by the said vehicle. In the said vehicle, a blue flasher light was installed. There was also a police mono on the said vehicle. The statement of Prahlad S/o Bhaiya Lal Patel is filed as Annexure P/2. Learned counsel further submits that the owner of said vehicle is Umesh Dubey, a Sub-Inspector in police department. The petitioner is impleaded him as respondent No. 5 in this petition.

5. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of incident, the vehicle was being driven by the owner himself and just because he is a police officer, the police authorities are trying to save him. Accordingly, one Krishan Kumar was made accused in the case. It is further urged that on 03.05.2015, a Panchnama was prepared by the Investigating Officer in relation to video footage. This document is filed as Annexure P/3. It is submitted that this document is a written report, which shows that as per the video recording obtained from the control room of Toll Plaza of Bakori, it is clear that the vehicle in question has passed through the said Toll Plaza. The movement of said vehicle is recorded at 16:48 hours and the said vehicle was moving from Narsinghpur to Mungwani. The petitioner preferred representative to concerned S.P. alleging that the said vehicle was being driven by the respondent No. 5, who is posted in Police Station, Mungwani. The same is followed by another representation dated 02.07.2015 (Annexure P/5). The said representations were followed by affidavits of Rajesh Patel and Sunil Patel (Annexure P/6). In the said affidavits, they have stated that the said vehicle at the time of incident was being driven by Umesh Dubey. There was a blue flasher light and police mono in the said vehicle. Shri Dhande argued that the police gave an information under RTI Act, 2005 to the petitioner on 22.07.2015 (Annexure P/8) wherein it is stated that the vehicle in question is not taken on duty by police department and in the private vehicles, the police mono cannot be used.

6. The main contention of the petitioner is that, in all fairness, the respondents should have collected the entire video footage of the vehicle in question from Toll Plaza. They have artistically collected the written report from Toll Plaza (Annexure P/3) and limited particulars of the video footage of vehicle in question which does not show the entire vehicle. If the complete video footage of the vehicle in question would have been procured by the Investigating Officer, it would hav