Back
The Five-Year Limbo: Rebukes Police over Investigative Procrastination
In a significant ruling aimed at curbing , the has criticized the practice of compelling persons to remain at police stations indefinitely without substantial evidence. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over cross-petitions regarding a murder case pending for over five years, emphasized that the of the cannot be secondary to an aimless, prolonged investigation.
The Five-Year Legal Standoff
The genesis of this dispute lies in FIR No. 109/2021, registered under Sections 365 (kidnapping) and 302 (murder) of the at . Following a complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate in Bandikui, the investigation was initiated via a directive.
For more than half a decade, the investigation remained in a state of suspended animation. The , Gangasahay and his family members, approached the seeking the , citing a lack of evidence and mental harassment. Simultaneously, the complainant filed a petition demanding a fair and expedited investigation, frustrated by the lack of progress.
Curbing Investigative Arbitrariness
During the proceedings, the Investigating Officer (IO) acknowledged the delay, attributing it to failed attempts to secure consent for polygraph tests and the need for further evidence. However, the Court found the explanation inadequate.
Justice Dhand highlighted that the police had been summoning the to the station daily, forcing them to sit from morning until evening. This practice, the court observed, was a clear overreach given the lack of "concrete evidence" connecting the petitioners to the crime.
Key Observations
The judgment serves as a sharp reminder to law enforcement agencies regarding the limits of their discretion:
-
"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."
-
"He is also supposed to submit the conclusion report of investigation either by way of submitting
or
under
"
-
"...he cannot be allowed in any case to call the
persons at the Police Station and compel them to remain there from morning to evening, without being sure about any concrete evidence against them."
The Directives: A Call for Accountability
The Court issued clear guidelines for the . The has been specifically tasked with monitoring the investigation to prevent unnecessary harassment. While the IO retains the liberty to interrogate the if specific evidence necessitates it, the "daily attendance" tactic has been explicitly prohibited absent solid grounds.
Implications for Future Probes
This decision reinforces the principles of and , ensuring that "investigation" does not become synonymous with "endless intimidation." By mandating that police must either file a or a final negative report under within a reasonable timeframe, the has reaffirmed that the judiciary will not tolerate bureaucratic indifference in criminal matters.
For the legal community, this serves as a precedent that administrative delay in criminal investigations is not just a procedural flaw, but a violation of the rights of the , warranting active judicial intervention.
