A Delhi court has observed that investigative agencies cannot act according to their whims and fancies and courts have enough power to prevent any misuse or abuse of their powers.
The court also said that it had the power to supervise and monitor an investigation to ensure its fairness and impartiality and expected senior police officers to reform the investigation machinery instead of “justifying the blatantly unwarranted conduct of the investigating officers”. Was.
“Investigating agencies cannot act as per their whims and fancies and courts have adequate power to prevent misuse or abuse of powers by the investigating agencies,” the court said in its recent order.
Additional Sessions Judge Atul Krishna Agrawal made the remarks while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Faheem, against whom the Delhi Police had registered an FIR for various offenses including theft, sexual assault and criminal intimidation.
According to the police, the accused was allegedly one of the associates of the main accused Mehfooz and he allegedly entered the complainant’s slum and committed theft and sexually assaulted his wife.
The court noted that the main accused Mahfooz has already got bail in this case and the case against the accused is frivolous.
It further said that the present Investigating Officer (IO) could not produce any further evidence which could corroborate the allegations leveled against Faheem in the FIR.
In relief to him, the court said, “Since the statement of the complainant’s wife has been recorded, no purpose would be served by sending the accused to custody for the mere reason that it does not require custodial interrogation.” ,
The court, however, noted that another court in an order in May 2022 said that prima facie it appears to be an attempt by both the complainant and the accused to stake claim on public land on various pretexts.
It also took note of the earlier court’s observation that this was possibly a case of dispute between two gangs of land mafia, who were involved in grabbing and selling illegally constructed buildings allegedly encroaching on government land.
The judge noted that the earlier court had directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Joint Commissioner of Police with the observation that, if required, it would be open to the police to take the assistance of specialized agencies. Verify the background and credentials of the complainant, witnesses and others in connection with the likely land grab.
The court noted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police has sought time from the preceding court to ensure that proper communication and action was taken by the agency concerned.
The Deputy Commissioner of Police had later told the earlier court, “In the light of the observation made by the court, a decision regarding transfer of investigation in the matter to a specialized agency dealing with land grab cases appears necessary but a decision in this regard Can only be taken at the level of a higher authority.”
But after August 5 last year, no further communication was received from the DCP and the present court sought a report from the police officer on November 29 last year, the Additional Sessions Judge said.
It further said that another DCP, however, submitted a report in December, stating that the present case was examined on merits and found devoid of any intervention from any particular agency.
The court noted that the DCP’s report also stated that the investigation was not transferred as it was the “prerogative” of the investigating agency.
“Normally such reports are made part of the record without any comments, however, this Court is constrained to make certain observations in view of the aforesaid report of the DCP as it is based on erroneous premises besides being erroneous in nature. evasive,” the court said.
It said the report was not filed in time before the preceding court and was “kept in the dark”. “What to say of the IO, even a police officer of the level of Additional DCP assured the court that he is aware of the decision taken by his superior police officers regarding the investigation to be conducted by a special agency. inform the court.” …but did not do so,” the court said.
The court noted that even on subsequent dates, the court was not informed and this shows the “callous attitude” of senior police officers.
Expressing displeasure over the remarks of the Additional DCP that the investigation is the prerogative of the agency, the court observed that even though it is the prerogative of the agency, the IO as well as his superiors including DCPs and higher police officers should keep in mind this discretion” was not complete”.
“Hence for the present DCP to say that investigation being the prerogative of the investigating agency, the investigation was an unnecessary remark and should have been avoided. The DCP should have already made himself well-versed with the facts,” the court said.
“Therefore, it is expected that the energies of the senior police officers should be spent in improving the investigation machinery instead of justifying the unbecoming conduct of the investigating officers,” the court said.
read all latest india news Here
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed)