Court emphasizes independence of investigations, denies petitioner's request to probe informant's income.

The court dismissed the accused petitioner's application seeking an inquiry into the informant's income source, emphasizing that the accused cannot influence the investigation process. The court highlighted that investigations should be based on agency findings, not the wishes of the parties involved. It underscored the importance of following proper procedures, such as filing complaints with relevant authorities, and respecting the autonomy of investigative agencies in determining the course of action.

---

---

Issues: Accused seeking direction for inquiry into informant's source of income and investigation terms

Analysis:
1. Accusation and FIR: The petitioner and her husband are accused in a case registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code based on a written report alleging non-execution of a promised sale deed after receiving a substantial amount.

2. Petitioner's Request for Inquiry: The petitioner requested the court to direct concerned authorities to investigate how the informant acquired the alleged large sum and to determine the source of his income.

3. Income Tax Department's Response: The Income Tax Department clarified that no complaint against the informant was lodged with them, and there was no ongoing investigation regarding the informant's income source.

4. State's Argument on Investigation: The State argued that the accused cannot dictate the terms of the investigation, emphasizing the confidential nature of investigations and the authority of investigating agencies to determine the course of action.

5. Vigilance Department's Position: The Vigilance Department stated that without a formal complaint, the petitioner's request for inquiry cannot be entertained, highlighting their procedure of conducting preliminary inquiries before initiating formal investigations.

6. Court's Decision: The court observed that the petitioner did not file any complaint against the informant with relevant authorities but directly sought an inquiry from the court. It emphasized that the accused cannot influence the investigation process and that the outcome should be based on the agency's findings, not the wishes of the parties involved.

7. Dismissal of Application: Concluding that the petitioner's application lacked merit, the court dismissed it, stating that there was no basis for issuing any directives to the respondents regarding the investigation.

This judgment underscores the principle that an accused individual cannot dictate the terms of a criminal investigation and that investigations should proceed based on established procedures and evidence rather than external influences. It highlights the importance of following proper channels, such as filing complaints with relevant authorities, and respecting the autonomy of investigative agencies in conducting inquiries and determining the course of action.

---