In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Devendra Tripathi and another accused, seeking a change of investigating agency in a criminal case involving allegations of assault, molestation, and other serious charges. The court, comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, reiterated the principle that accused persons do not have the right to choose their investigating agency.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Devendra Tripathi (75 years old) and his son, Girja Shanker @ Gopal, were named in an FIR filed by the informant (Respondent No. 4), alleging a brutal assault that occurred on July 17, 2023. According to the FIR, the informant claimed that on the morning of the incident, petitioner No. 2, Girja Shanker, forcibly entered her house and assaulted her. It was further alleged that when she raised an alarm, other co-accused, including petitioner No. 1, arrived at the scene, assaulted her and her husband, and caused injuries that led to a miscarriage. The police registered an FIR on August 27, 2023, following a court order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The petitioners argued that the FIR was baseless, malicious, and a tactic to exert pressure in an ongoing civil dispute over a property between the parties. They sought a directive from the High Court to transfer the investigation to another agency, alleging bias and undue influence over the local police by the informant, who they claimed has political connections.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether an accused person has the right to demand a change of investigating agency.
2. The applicability of Supreme Court judgments regarding the circumstances under which a court may intervene in an ongoing investigation.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The bench, delivering its judgment on September 10, 2024, rejected the petitioners’ plea for transferring the investigation to another agency. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Romila Thapar vs. Union of India (2018) and other cases, which established that an accused cannot insist on a particular mode of investigation or the choice of investigating agency.
Quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in Romila Thapar vs. Union of India, the court stated, “The accused cannot ask for changing the Investigating Agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for Court monitored investigation. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations.”
The High Court further observed, “Only on the contention that the FIR was lodged to exert pressure in a civil suit filed by petitioner No. 1, it cannot be discerned that the case lodged at the instance of the informant is malicious or that the investigation carried out by the police has been shoddy or perfunctory or partial. Law will take its own course.”
Concluding the matter, the court stated, “In the present case, there is no substantial material to prove mala fide exercise of power by the investigating officer. A vague and unsubstantiated assertion cannot justify a change of the investigating agency.”
Arguments by the Counsel
– For Petitioners: The petitioners, represented by Advocate Ramesh Kumar Singh, contended that the FIR was a result of malicious intent due to the ongoing civil dispute between the parties. They argued that the local police were biased due to the political influence of the informant and, therefore, a fair investigation could not be expected.
– For Respondents: Respondent No. 4’s counsel, Jitendra Kumar Shukla, along with the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Amit Sinha, argued that the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated. They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Romila Thapar and emphasized that the petitioners did not have the legal right to demand a change of investigating agency.
The court made it clear that any observations made in this judgment would not affect the merits of the ongoing investigation or trial.
Case Details:
– Case Title: Devendra Tripathi and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others
– Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15393 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
– Counsel for Petitioners: Ramesh Kumar Singh
– Counsel for Respondents: Jitendra Kumar Shukla, Amit Sinha (Additional Government Advocate)
