Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Jitendra Singh and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondents
MCRC 50459 of 2020
Decided On : 06-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Brajesh Kumar Tyagi
For the Respondent: Narottam Sharma, Panel Lawyer and Ram Kishor Sharma

The accused do not have the right to dictate the appointment of investigating agency or the manner of investigation, and the court cannot supervise or direct the investigating officer in the investigation process.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Direction for Investigation - IPC 376-D, Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants sought a direction to preserve CCTV footage and call records in a case registered under Section 376-D of IPC. The court considered whether it could issue a direction to the investigation agency to investigate the matter in a particular manner.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accused do not have a say in the appointment of investigating agency or the manner of investigation. It emphasized that the court cannot supervise or direct the investigating officer to investigate the matter in any particular angle.
Issues: Whether the court can issue a direction to the investigation agency to investigate the matter in a particular manner.
Ratio Decidendi: The accused do not have a say in the appointment of investigating agency or the manner of investigation. The court cannot supervise or direct the investigating officer to investigate the matter in any particular angle.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed as the court cannot direct the investigating officer to investigate the matter in any particular manner.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and be further pleased to direct the respondents to preserve the CCTV footage record and call record of Footage installations of the relevant time and place as mentioned in their applications to the authorities, in the interest of justice."

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that at the time of incident, they were not present on the spot and this fact can be verified by the police after obtaining CCTV Footage as well as call details of private establishments. It is further submitted that the FIR in Crime No. 419/2020 has been registered at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind for offence under Section 376-D of IPC.

3. Considered the submission made by the counsel for the applicants.

4. The moot question for consideration is that whether this Court can issue a direction to the investigation agency to investigate the matter in a particular manner or not?

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Romila Thapar v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 has held as under:

23. After having given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and upon perusing the pleadings and documents produced by both the sides, coupled with the fact that now four named accused have approached this Court and have asked for being transposed as writ petitioners, the following broad points may arise for our consideration:

23.1. (i) Should the investigating agency be changed at the behest of the named five accused?

23.2. (ii) If the answer to Point (i) is in the negative, can a prayer of the same nature be entertained at the behest of the next friend of the accused or in the garb of PIL?

23.3. (iii) If the answer to Questions (i) and/or (ii) above, is in the affirmative, have the petitioners made out a case for the relief of appointing Special Investigating Team or directing the court-monitored investigation by an independent investigating agency?

23.4. (iv) Can the accused person be released merely on the basis of the perception of his next friend (writ petitioners) that he is an innocent and law abiding person?

24. Turning to the first point, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is no more res integra. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, in para 64, this Court restated that it is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency. Further, the accused persons cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the offence committed by them. Para 64 of this decision reads thus:

"64. It is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigating agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them."

(emphasis supplied)

25. Again in Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India, the Court restated that the accused had no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Para 68 of this judgment reads thus:

"68. The accused has no right with reference to the manner of investigation or mode of prosecution. Similar is the law laid down by this Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha Mayawati v. Union of India, Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, CCI v. SAIL and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary."

(emphasis supplied)

26. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in E. Sivakumar v. Union of India, while dealing with the appeal preferred by the "accused" challenging the order of the High Court directing investigation by CBI, in para 10 observed:

"10. As regards the second ground urged by the petitioner, we find that even this aspect has been duly considered in the impugned judgment. In para 129 of the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on Dinubhai Boghabhai Solan