In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, quashed the charge sheet and the entire criminal proceedings against the accused, holding that the Superintendent of Police (SP) has no authority to direct the Investigating Officer (IO) to file a charge sheet. The court emphasized that an investigation must be fair, free from external influence, and conducted strictly within the legal framework, reaffirming that a fair investigation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma, came in Application U/S 482 No. 2882 of 2016, filed by Pradeep Kumar Maurya and Others against the State of Uttar Pradesh and another party. The charge sheet filed against the applicants under Sections 147, 323, 504, and 353 of the IPC was declared invalid as it was prepared in compliance with an unlawful order issued by the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a series of criminal complaints between the parties. Initially, one of the applicants, Mohd. Airaj Siddiqui, lodged an FIR (Crime No. 24 of 2009) under Sections 147, 323, 336, 504, and 506 IPC against the son of the informant in the present case. This complaint led to legal proceedings against the accused in that case.
However, while the case was pending, a counter-FIR (Crime No. 359 of 2010) was lodged against the present applicants under Sections 147, 323, 504, 427, 307, and 308 IPC, alleging that they had assaulted the complainant and caused injuries. Following an investigation, the local police submitted a final report (No. 201/2010) citing lack of evidence, concluding that no charge sheet was warranted.
Subsequently, the case was transferred to the CB-CID for further investigation, and on June 6, 2011, the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, issued an order canceling the final report and directing the Investigating Officer to file a charge sheet against the accused. Acting on these instructions, the IO submitted a charge sheet against the applicants, leading to cognizance being taken by the Magistrate.
Aggrieved by this development, the applicants filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Allahabad High Court, seeking quashing of the charge sheet and all related proceedings, arguing that the SP had no legal authority to override the IO’s discretion.
Legal Issues Considered by the Court
The case raised several crucial legal questions regarding police powers and fair investigation principles, including:
1. Can a Superintendent of Police cancel a final report and direct the Investigating Officer to file a charge sheet?
– The court held that the SP lacks the authority to dictate whether a charge sheet should be filed. The Investigating Officer alone has the discretion to decide, based on evidence collected during investigation, as provided under Sections 173(2) and 173(8) of the CrPC.
2. Does interference by a superior officer in the investigation process violate fundamental rights?
– The court emphasized that fair investigation is a fundamental and constitutional right under Articles 14, 21, and 39-A of the Constitution. Any external interference in the IO’s decision-making process undermines the integrity of criminal investigations.
3. What is the role of superior police officers in criminal investigations?
– While Section 36 of the CrPC allows superior officers to supervise investigations, they cannot dictate the outcome. Their role is limited to ensuring procedural compliance, not directing IOs to file charge sheets.
Key Observations of the Court
The High Court made strong observations regarding the necessity of an impartial investigation:
– “A fair investigation is not a privilege but a fundamental right of every accused and victim under Articles 14, 21, and 39-A of the Constitution of India.”
– “The power of an Investigating Officer to form an opinion on prosecution is exclusive and cannot be overridden by a superior officer.”
– “Any influence by external authorities vitiates the sanctity of investigation and is a direct attack on the fundamental rights of the accused.”
– “If prosecution is allowed to continue based on an illegally filed charge sheet, it will amount to an abuse of the process of law.”
– “No authority other than the IO has the power to determine whether a case merits prosecution, and any attempt to circumvent this principle is illegal.”
The court cited several landmark Supreme Court judgments to reinforce these principles, including:
State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980) 1 SCC 554
Abhinandan Jha vs. Dinesh Mishra (AIR 1968 SC 117)
Nirmal Singh Kohlon vs. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi (1955 CrLJ 526)
The court reiterated that under Section 173(8) CrPC, an Investigating Officer has the power to conduct further investigation even after filing a charge sheet. However, this authority is vested solely in the IO, not in a supervising police officer like the SP.
Decision of the Court
After analyzing the legal position, the High Court quashed the charge sheet and the entire proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, declaring them unlawful. The key reasons for this decision were:
The charge sheet was filed under the direct influence of an SP’s order, which was beyond his legal authority.
The final decision to file a charge sheet must rest solely with the IO, based on collected evidence.
Interference in investigation by superior officers violates the constitutional rights of an accused.
Allowing the proceedings to continue would constitute an “abuse of process of law.”
The court concluded:
“To sum up, this Court is of the view that the formation of opinion by the Superintendent of Police for filing a charge sheet in this case and communicating his order to the Investigating Officer for compliance cannot be said to be in conformity with the provisions of law, but it may amount to interference in the fair investigation of the case that is a fundamental right of the accused, as established under Articles 14, 21, and 39-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer in compliance with the illegal order passed by the supervising authority, the Superintendent of Police, cannot be said to be legal. If prosecution is allowed to continue on such a charge sheet filed in compliance with the illegal order of the supervising authority, it will amount to abuse of the process of the court.”
Accordingly, the court allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the charge sheet along with all related proceedings.
