in , ,

Black-sheep kind of I.O investigated the Sham case: Allahabad HC


The instant application is being moved by the applicant invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C .Rebuking all who were found involved in a fake case, Allahabad High Court recently directed the Inspector General, Meerut Range along with the District & Sessions Judge, Baghpat to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and to personally supervise the investigation into the matter.

Bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi landed upon a matter where one Anticipatory Bail application had been filed before the court apprehending arrest for alleged non-bailbale offences, however, the informant of the case i.e. the alleged author of the FIR had himself denied writing any such FIR.

The informant in his recorded statements under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. had alleged that his documents had been misused by his own maternal brother for the purpose. 

Therefore, noting that under these circumstances the police had no other option but to give a ‘closure report’ and no threat of arrest remained against the applicant, the court heavily came down upon the authorities for their negligent manner in dealing with the case. 

Court said that it was itself stunning how a false FIR was cooked up to implicate the applicant, but the more disturbing fact was that the said F.I.R. was registered through 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, and ordered by the Court to investigate into the matter by the concerned I.O.

Court noted, 

The I.O. too blindly without verifying the root and the author of the F.I.R., concluded the exercise of investigation and have submitted the charge sheet against the applicant. Not only this the learned Magistrate too in most mechanical fashion has taken the cognizance of the offences.”

Therefore, stressing that this by itself it was a shocking stage of affair and an example, Court said,

This case is also an eye-opener for all those concerned, who have not paid any serious heed to the repeated instructions/guidelines of the High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard (taking cognizance only after application of judicial mind) and has made mess of the entire so-called prosecution.

Therefore, noting that the matter related to a deep-rooted conspiracy whereby the State machinery was mobilized by certain persons for their joyride and to level the score with the applicant, court stated, 

Any criminal prosecution is not meant for amusement or to level the score with their opponents. To mobilize the police personnel on a sham case is extremely serious issue and no mercy be shown to these person, who gives hoax-call by initiating the proceedings.

Court also noted that it appeared that the concerned I.O. of the case was hand in glove with the person behind the curtains for obvious pecuniary gains, and held that because of that only in a hot haste manner he had conducted a perfunctory and superficial investigation and hurriedly submitted a charge sheet in a typical way. 

Therefore, the court held that the alleged investigation in the case was conclusively is an eye-wash and a sham exercise that created no criminal liability upon the charge-sheeted accused persons.

Court also rebuked the Magistrate for his insouciance in the case. Court stated that in order to issue summons, the Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about the prima facie case against the accused and the role played by them in their respective capacity, however, in the present case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences without verifying the identity of its author.

Therefore, court stated, 

Under the circumstances, the Court records its deep anguish and concern about the way and the manner, in which the alleged fraud has been committed upon the system and the process, whereby the persons of vested interest just for the sake of amusement and for their joyride used this solemn mechanism to level the score with their opponents.

Accordingly, the court issued the above said direction to the I.G. Merrut and District & Sessions Judge, Baghpat. Court further asked them to get an F.I.R. lodged against all those persons, who were either overtly or covertly involved in the offence, including the police personnel who were entrusted with the investigation. The matter will be heard again on December 2, 2021 for further arguments.

Also Read  Calcutta HC directed the Director of ICDS to take steps for appointment of an independent examiner to verify the allotment of marks for recruitment of CDPO