2019 (10) TMI 1211 - HC - Indian Laws

Refusal to execute sale deed as promised by them in respect of a plot - investigation of the going on - HELD THAT - It has rightly been contended by the learned counsel for the State that an accused in a criminal case can not set the term of investigation. Since investigation into a cognizable offence is going on, it would not be proper for this Court to presume anything either against the accused or against the informant of the case. The investigating agency would submit its report on the basis of outcome of investigation and not as per the wishes of the informant or the accused - No case for issuance of any mandamus to the respondents is made out. Application dismissed.

Summary

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.