The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition said that at the stage of investigation the accused has no right to be heard and the accused cannot come forward to claim fair investigation only on the ground that according to the accused the matter has wrongly been handed over to the Crime Branch.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Preeti Singh.
The petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur to ensure the Fair Investigation of the Crime being Crime No 43 of 2022 lodged on 22.02.2022 Under Section 167, 166, 218, 419, 420, 418, 466, 468, 474, 471, 504, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur by transferring the investigation of some other investigating Officer, in the better interest of justice.
(2) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur to withdraw the investigation from the Crime Branch in regard to the Crime referred to above so that investigation of the Crime may not be diluted in any manner and real culprits may be booked who are accountable for the commission of the Crime, in the better interest of justice.”
The FIR in question was filed by the petitioner herself, however, during investigation by the Crime Branch she was implicated as an accused, therefore, at present it is not in dispute that the status of petitioner is that of an accused in the aforesaid case and she had come forward to challenge the aforesaid first information report by filing Criminal Misc Writ Petition (Preeti Singh vs State of U.P and others), which after arguments got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.7.2023, however, with the observation that no liberty to file fresh for the same cause of action is being granted.
Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a lady, who is fighting with the anti-social elements and in fact she had filed the first information report and therefore, her arrest will affect the investigation of the crime and the real guilty person will go scot free. The accused nominated in the first information report are very influential people and therefore, they are avoiding the fair investigation of the crime and have managed to get the same transferred to the Crime Branch with ulterior motives and now the petitioner has been made an accused in the case itself.
Submission, therefore, is that a writ of mandamus be issued to ensure fair investigation in Case and a mandamus be issued to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur to withdraw the investigation from the Crime Branch so the investigation may not be diluted in any manner and real culprits may be booked who are accountable for the commission of offence.
Much emphasis was given by the counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babubhai (supra) that the investigating agency is duty bound to conduct the fair investigation avoiding mischief and harassment to any of the accused and it is submitted that not only fair trial but fair investigation is also constitutional right guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of the rule of law.
Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to take note that the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are the cases where the ‘informant’ has come forward to challenge the proceedings and most of them relates to direction for further investigation or transfer of the investigation. In the case it is the ‘accused’, who has come forward at the initial stage of the investigation itself, the Court said.
The Court have made reference to all such cases to highlight the fact that the rulings relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are relate to either further investigation or transfer of the investigation directed by the Magistrate after submission of the police report, or transfer or re-investigation or de novo investigation directed by the constitutional court.
In the case, the question is as to whether the accused person has any right or hearing at the investigation stage or to question the manner in which evidence is being collected by claiming a direction for fair investigation?
The Court noted that Chapter XII Cr.P.C provides for information to the police and powers to investigate and this chapter consists of Section 154 to 176, which covers the area from lodging of first information report in a cognizable case, information as to non cognizable cases and investigation of such cases, police officer’s power to investigate and submission of police report as well.
“Thus, it is very much clear that at the stage of investigation, the accused has no right to be heard and she cannot come forward to claim fair investigation only on the ground that according to her the matter has wrongly been handed over to the Crime Branch and simply for the reason that initially the petitioner was informant and subsequently she had been arrayed as accused in the first information report in question.
“From perusal of record of petition, we do not find any ground worth withdrawing the investigation from the Crime Branch and to transfer the same to some other agency in view of the law as discussed hereinabove.
“As already noticed, the petitioner had come forward to challenge the first information report as an accused, which, after arguments was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.7.2023, however, with the observation that no liberty to file fresh for the same cause of action is being granted”, the Court observed while dismissing the petition.