Transfer of Investigation Case High Court Chandigarh must insist establish and prove them from the facts and circumstances to the satisfaction of the court
JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
GAUR GURPREET V. STATE OF PUNJAB, 12th August, 2013
Also Read- Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh
Today we are going to talk about the case of Gaur Gurpreet v. State of Punjab and others, 12th August, 2013. And also, there was an another, case named as Ms. Sonica Malhotra and others v. State of Punjab in which the learning council for both of these cases were same as for complainant Mr. Siddharta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Khanna and for the respondents it was Ms. Rita Kohli, additional advocate general, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 3 to 5 and Mr. S.S. Narula, advocate for respondents No.2.
The case was about the transfer of investigation went wrong on the various grounds and that has to be investigated after issuing various of notices. The case was being held in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. That’s why the criminal petition was being filed in the Court. Now to state the facts, issues along with the judgement came are as follows:
Also Read- Parallel Inquiry by Police High Court Chandigarh Judgment
- The petitioners filed a petition under section 482 for quashing of FIR No.180 on 4th November, 2011 under sections 420 (warrant with whom to be launched), 467 (definitions-means the period specified in section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence), 468 (bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation), 471 (exclusion of date on which court is closed) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also 120-B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code.
- The petition also filed for transferring of investigation by raising on various grounds. After issuing notice of motion, the case has been adjourned on various dates either on the request of the learned council for the petitioners or the State counsel. Gurcharan Singh (complainant) approached the Supreme Court by way of filing leave to appeal of Kaur Gurpreet of 2013 was attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and High Court proceedings pending herein. This was the application for preponing the hearing of the main petition, which has been ordered to be listed on 11th July, 2013.
Also Read- Settlement in Domestic Violence case High Court Chandigarh
- There was no ground for preponing the main petition as it was made out. The prayer for preponement appears to have been made with oblique motive of avoiding order on 22nd April, 2013 whereby, the complainants have been delivered to join investigation. Accordingly, prayer for preponement of main petition was declined. Presentation of final investigation report under section 173 CRPC (report of police officer on completion of investigation) shall remain stayed. Kaur Gurpreet attested to the accuracy and integrity of the document and High Court pending before the court which has now been adjourned and is coming up for final hearing on 24th July, 2013. Mr. Satinder Gulati, learned council submits the respondents that have been adopting delaying tactics and not allowing the High Court to pass an order in the proceedings pending before it. This position is disputed by learned council but be that as it may, this petition was adjourned to be listed again on 29th July, 2013.
- The transfer of investigation has been sought on the ground that the conduct of the investigating agency was neither fair nor impartial and the complainants was being supported by the investigating officer directly, or indirectly. The investigating agency has become tool in the hands of the complainant and in such manner like, the investigation cannot be fair. It was also the argument of learned council for the petitioners that they have no faith and confidence in the investigation conducted by the Punjab Police which is clear from the affidavit of the Commissioner of Police stating therein the version of the complainant word by word and even para after para. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the complainant is powerful and influential person and the police is under his pressure.
Also Read- Case Status System of Punjab and Haryana High Court
- The complainant is hand-in-glove with the police and because of that reason, the petitioners are being victimized by the Investigating Agency by calling time and again to join investigation. They are compelled to sit for the whole day in the police station. Even the investigation of the Kaur Gurpreet attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and High Court, Chandigarh petitioners, who are women, was being conducted after sunset. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are having a reasonable apprehension that the investigation is not likely to be fair and impartial as it is a case of conspiracy executed by the complainant himself by unilaterally amending the Articles of Association without giving any notice or taking consent of the petitioners. The complainant is utilizing the police agency to cover up their own criminal actions. The police and the complainant are hand-in-glove with each other and the petitioners are being harassed unnecessarily. Instead of investigating the case in a fair and impartial manner, the investigating agency has become a mouthpiece of the complainant and is working as their spokesperson.
Also Read- Anticipatory Bail Proclaimed Offender High Court Chandigarh
- Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court in cases Babubhai vs State of Gujarat and others for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others 2010(3) Supreme Court Cases 571 in support of his contention. In reply of the application for transfer of investigation, it has been mentioned that the documents alleged to be forged, were not made available till date and an opinion has been given in absence of those documents which depicts the biasness of the investigating agency. Repeated notices containing identical questions were issued to the petitioners which have already been answered. Learned counsel further submits that pressure tactics are being adopted by the Investigating Agency. Learned State counsel has also filed a detailed reply and submits that the petitioners have not produced any record required by the Investigating Officer and the delay is being caused because of the conduct of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that neither any personal bias has been shown in the investigation nor anything has been brought on record to show that the Investigating Officer was not fair or was impartial. The petitioners are making all efforts to jeopardize and stall the investigation. Although it has been stated before this Court every time that the petitioners are ready and willing to join investigation but in-spite of said directions issued by this Court also, the petitioners has neither answered the questionnaires supplied by the Investigating Agency nor produced the original record. The conduct of the petitioners is not fair before this Court also as every time, it has been stated that they are joining investigation and whatever documents are required, are being produced before the Investigating Officer but in-spite of giving undertaking, the petitioners are not co-operating with the investigation. The conduct of the petitioners is clear that the statement was made before this Court as a direction was issued to the petitioners to join investigation on 15.05.2013 but instead of joining investigation and producing record, a date was sought by the petitioners and the application was filed for preponement of the date of hearing in the main petition.
Also Read- High Court Chandigarh NDPS Regular Bail Case
- Learned State counsel, also submits that the petitioners while joining investigation were accompanied by battery of lawyers and the stand taken by them is not correct that the investigation was conducted after sunset. Moreover, a lady constable was present during the course of investigation. The petitioners are playing hide and seek not only with the investigating agency but with the Court also, moreover upon every hearing Kaur Gurpreet 2013 attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and High Court, Chandigarh before this Court, the date is being asked on one pretext or the other. Learned counsel also submits that no bias against any individual has been mentioned in the transfer application and nothing has been said as to how the Investigating Officer is not fair and impartial.
Learned State counsel has also relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court in cases Central Bureau of Investigation and another vs Rajesh Gandhi and another AIR 1997 Supreme Court 93 as well as judgment of this Court in case M/s Chiranji Lal Lakhmi Chand, Malour through its partners vs State of Punjab 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 393.
Also Read- Protest Petition Challenged Punjab Haryana High Court
- The petitioners have filed a petition for quashing of FIR which is still pending. The application has also been moved for transfer of investigation on the ground that the conduct of the investigating officer is not fair and the investigation is not being conducted in an impartial manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, wherein, the stand taken by the complainant has been reiterated without any application of mind. Although the allegations of bias and prejudice have been alleged in the transfer application by stating that the investigating officer is hand-in-glove with the complainant and pressure tactics are being adopted to victimize Kaur Gurpreet attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and High Court, Chandigarh the petitioners by calling them time and again to join investigation. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that in-spite of supplying documents and joining investigation, still the investigating officer is not satisfied with the petitioners because of bias having been in the mind of investigating officer. The stand of the State counsel is that the petitioners are not producing the original record and have not answered the questionnaires supplied by the investigating officer. The delay tactics are being conducted by the petitioners themselves, whereas, there was no fault on the part of the investigating officer. The delay is only because of the conduct of the petitioners. The transfer application has been moved on vague grounds.
Also Read- Punjab and Haryana High Court finds investigation into NDPS
- Admittedly, the power of investigation is a statutory one and it is not to be interfered in ordinary course unless some exceptional situation or compelling circumstances are there. A limited scope of interference is there in the investigation as power to investigate is statutory one. The code has also conferred power on the statutory authorities to direct the transfer of investigation from one police station to another under some mitigating circumstances. This power to interfere in the investigation can be exercised if that is necessary to cause justice to the party or to prevent misuse of process of law. In the present case, the allegations have been levelled against the investigating officer by stating that the investigating officer is hand-in- glove with the complainant but no personal bias whatsoever has been shown except the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, wherein, the stand taken by the complainant has been reiterated. The stand which has been taken in the affidavit can be said that the affidavit has been prepared without any application of mind but it cannot be said that there Kaur Gurpreet attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and High Court, Chandigarh was a bias in the mind of investigating officer. It has come on record that notices have been sent to the petitioners to join investigation and some of the questionnaires were also supplied but neither the original record of the case has been produced so far before the investigating officer nor some of the documents required for investigation have been supplied.
- There is no dispute that the investigation into criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that the investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct. There should not be any suspicion during investigation. Although as per submissions made by learned State counsel, the investigation has been completed but the original record has not been supplied by the petitioners and in the absence of original record, the documents like notices, proceeding books, postal receipts, Memorandum of Articles of Association, computer hard disk cannot be verified and their authenticity can be ascertained only after receipt of original documents.
Also Read- Latest Important Judgements List – High Court of Punjab and
The conduct of the petitioners does not appear to be fair which is clear from the fact that in-spite of directions issued by this Court to the petitioners to be present before the Investigating Agency on 24.03.2012 at 11.30 am in police station, an application was moved before this Court for preponement of date. On subsequent dates also, the petitioners did not appear on one pretext or the other in-spite of giving undertaking before this Court. Although the carelessness on the part of the Commissioner of Police is reflected in filing of affidavit and the stand taken by the complainant has been reiterated, which was unwarranted.
- The conduct of Kaur Gurpreet was attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document and High Court, Chandigarh the police official can be termed as negligent but the same cannot be termed as biased. Moreover, nothing has been pointed out as to how the Investigating Officer is partial or biased except on the ground that the petitioners have been called upon to join investigation or to answer some of the questionnaires or to supply some documents. Petitioners themselves are not serious in joining investigation and in supplying the documents. To play hide and seek with the investigating agency is also not fair on the part of the petitioners.
Admittedly, the Courts are reluctant to interfere in the investigation unless the compelling reasons are there or the allegations of mala fide or bias are there against the investigating officer or there is something to establish and prove the reasons to the satisfaction of the Court. Undoubtedly, the investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct investigation avoiding any type of misconduct or harassment to the accused persons.
Also Read- March 18, 2021 1. CRM-M-16013-2020 Pankaj Kumar @ Panki
- No doubt, fair investigation is also a part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India as has been held in the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in case Babubhai vs State of Gujarat and others2010(12) Supreme Court Cases 254. It has also been held that investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious which is minimum requirement of rule of law and furthermore, it has been held that the investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner and in case of non-interference of Court, it would result in failure of justice. In State of Bihar vs P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp(1) SCC 222, it has been held in para Nos.57 to 61 as under :-
Investigation is a delicate painstaking and dextrous process. Ethical conduct is absolutely essential for investigative professionalism. Therefore, before countenancing such allegations of mala fides or bias it is salutary and an onerous duty and responsibility of the court, not only to insist upon making specific and definite allegations of personal animosity against the investigating officer at the start of the investigation but also must insist establish and prove them from the facts and circumstances to the satisfaction of the court. Malice in law could be inferred from doing of wrongful act intentionally without any just cause or excuse or without there being reasonable relation to the purpose of the exercise of statutory power. The judgement decided in this case was done by Daya Chaudhary.
Also Read- Kaur Gurpreet vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 August .
CONCLUSION
The judgement decided in this case was at all justified from all the legal points and was appropriate for the complainant as well as for respondent too.
This post is written by Sammyak Jain.
For case specific advice, please contact Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh best top expert lawyers.
More on 99888-17966.
