Can’t set deadlines for probe completion while ordering fair investigation: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that it cannot fix time limits for completion of investigation or guide the probe in accordance with its own views. Making it clear, the court must refrain from overstepping into the domain of investigation. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted that it can use its inherent powers to ensure a fair and proper probe, but the court should not use its influence in an unjustifiable manner.

Justice Brar warned that such interference could unfairly influence the investigating agency’s conclusions and divert the process away from the larger aim of delivering justice. “The high courts, while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC, can issue directions for prompt and proper investigation. However, it would be out of bounds to instruct the investigation to be completed in a certain timeframe, in alignment with the opinion expressed by it,” Justice Brar asserted.

The observations came as Justice Brar dismissed a protection petition filed directly before the High Court by a woman apprehending that she and her family might be falsely implicated in a case. The petitioner contended that action was not initiated despite a representation to senior police officers on March 5, compelling her to approach the high court against the State of Punjab and other respondents to protect her and her family’s life and liberty.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the police officials were merely conducting routine checks to intercept suspects involved in drug trafficking and that the petitioner’s son was under grave suspicion. The State argued that the officials were simply performing their duties.

After hearing rival contentions, the Bench asserted: “The courts must be conscious of its influence and not exercise the same in an unwarranted fashion as it may prejudice the conclusion of the investigating agency, straying further away from achieving the overarching goal of justice.”

Justice Brar observed that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained why she approached it directly instead of first moving the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC, which empowers the judicial officer to deal with such matters.

“Even though the jurisdictional Magistrate is well equipped to deal with such type of matters, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to provide a satisfactory response regarding approaching this court directly… Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being bereft of any merit.”

Punjab