The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not for Lower Courts to castigate Police/ IO unnecessarily at the drop of hat as they aren't akin to Constitutional Courts.
The Court observation came while dealing with a plea in which it stayed an order passed by a Sessions Court in bail proceedings, wherein it had pulled up an Investigating Officer of the Delhi Police for conducting hasty investigation in a case of Dowry Death.
Brief Facts of Case
The case was concerned around the suspicious death of petitioner's wife in her matrimonial home within two years of her marriage
It was alleged that soon before her death, she was contacting her father via mobile calls and disclosing about harassment and torture by her husband and was hinting about her impending death in his hands.
The Sessions Judge held in the bail plea of the petitioner that the IO had conducted hasty investigation and had not bothered to make efforts to collect independence evidence of reported offence and thus denied bail to him.
Aggrieved, the petitioner moved High Court. It was the case of the petitioner-husband that the Sessions Judge had no inherent powers and couldn't delve into the realm of investigation, while sitting in bail jurisdiction.
High Court Observation
The single-Judge Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh read out the High Court Rules with regard to the 'Criticism of Investigating Officer' which states that it is undesirable for Courts to make remarks censuring the action of Police Officers unless such remarks are strictly relevant of the case. The Rules also states that there should not be an over-alacrity on the part of Judicial Officers to believe anything and every thing against the police and harsh action should only be taken when its fully proven otherwise.
He also relied on the case of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors, 2000 Latest Caselaw 450 SC, where the Supreme Court had directed that the Courts to ordinarily desist from castigating the investigation even while ordering acquittal.
The Court also mentioned many other precedents in support of the fact that the Lower Courts hold powers only to grant or not grant the bail when the trial is pending and cannot examine investigation part of the case.
This includes SC Judgement in State v. M. Murugesan,2020 Latest Caselaw 38 SC in which the Supreme Court set aside a Madras High Court order, passed during bail proceedings, that directed the State to constitute a committee to recommend reforms for improving the quality of investigation.
The Court then relied on SC Judgement in case of Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and stated that it is a settled position of law that the Lower Courts are not akin to Constitutional Courts and while deciding an application under Section 439 of the Code, they are bound to decide it within the four corners of the statue only.
The Court cited case of Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v. State of Gujarat in which SC examined the extent of power under Section 439 of the Code. Other mentioned SC Judgements were:
Read Order Here:
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments