TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Judicial orders in ongoing police investigation on arresting named suspects and using case diary material curtailed; plea dismissed</h1> During an ongoing criminal investigation, a court cannot direct the investigating officer to include or arrest a particular person as an accused; such ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether, during an ongoing criminal investigation, the High Court could direct or otherwise require the investigating agency to include and arrest a particular person as an accused. (ii) Whether, while dismissing a challenge in such circumstances, the High Court ought to refrain from disclosing or relying upon investigation materials from police diaries and statements, and from making adverse comments or directions affecting the ongoing investigation. (iii) Whether any further relief was warranted by the Supreme Court in special leave proceedings, given that the appeal had been dismissed but contained certain observations and directions concerning the investigation. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Judicial power to compel inclusion/arrest of a person as an accused during ongoing investigation Legal framework (as discussed): The Court proceeded on the basis that the investigation was still in progress and treated the scope of judicial interference at that stage as very limited. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the High Court's core determination that 'no court has power' to direct the investigating officer to include a person as an accused while investigation is in progress. The Court emphasised that premature judicial interference can derail investigation and demoralise investigators, and that courts should be wary of increasing tendencies to interfere during investigation. Conclusion: The Court affirmed that the High Court was right in dismissing the request for directions aimed at compelling inclusion/arrest of a named officer while investigation was ongoing. Issue (ii): Use and disclosure of police diaries/statements and comments/directions impacting investigation Legal framework (as discussed): The Court noted that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, statements to police and police diaries have only 'very limited use' even at trial, referring to the restrictions reflected in Sections 162 and 172. Interpretation and reasoning: Although the High Court had perused case diaries and related materials in chambers, the Court held that the High Court 'should have refrained' from disclosing in its order material contained in diaries and statements, particularly because investigation in the very case was in progress. The Court further held that the High Court should also have refrained from comments on the manner of investigation by the investigating agency when investigation was far from complete, and that 'any observations which may amount to interference' should not be made. The Court expressly disapproved certain directions given to the investigating agency 'in regard to the investigation matters' and clarified that such directions 'may be ignored.' It characterised the adverse comments against the investigating agency as 'premature' and avoidable, while still recognising the propriety of a general expectation that the investigating agency should act efficiently and vigilantly without being pressurised. Conclusion: The Court held that the High Court's disclosure of investigative material and adverse comments/directions affecting investigation were improper at that stage; the impugned investigative directions did not meet with the Court's approval and could be disregarded. Issue (iii): Whether special leave relief should be granted notwithstanding disapproved observations/directions Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that the High Court's ultimate disposal-dismissal of the appeal seeking interference during investigation-was correct. Given that the Supreme Court had clarified that the objectionable investigative directions could be ignored and that adverse comments were premature, it found that granting special leave would serve no practical purpose. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the special leave petition without granting further relief, while recording clarifications that the disapproved directions concerning investigation may be ignored.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
