2020 (6) TMI 616 - HC - Customs

Validity of investigation conducted by a investigating officer - It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent have been harassing him under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - In the present case in hand, the petitioner has complained of harassment by the respondent based on a complaint and seek for this Court's intervention by way of a direction. The term 'harassment' by itself has a very wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to the petitioner may not be the same to the investigating officer. While summoning any person named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the investigating officer shall summon such person through a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifying a particular date and time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation - The investigating officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged harassment by the respondent during an enquiry.
2. Exercise of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. Interference with police investigation in cases of harassment complaints.
4. Issuance of guidelines to prevent harassment during enquiries.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner alleged harassment by the respondent during an enquiry. The petitioner sought the Court's direction to prevent such harassment based on a complaint. The respondent, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor (Customs), mentioned that an enquiry was ongoing based on a complaint against the petitioner by the defacto complainant.

Issue 2: The Court considered the invocation of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner claimed harassment under the guise of an enquiry/investigation, prompting the Court to intervene. The Court acknowledged that while investigating officers have unfettered powers to conduct enquiries into non-cognizable or cognizable offences, such powers must be exercised lawfully within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue 3: The Court addressed the issue of interference with police investigations in cases of alleged harassment. It noted that while the Magistrate has a supervisory role in police investigations, there is no provision empowering the Magistrate to interfere with the actual investigation process. The Court highlighted the prevalence of complaints regarding harassment and sought to balance the need for investigation with preventing undue harassment.

Issue 4: To prevent situations of alleged harassment during enquiries, the Court issued specific guidelines. These guidelines included summoning individuals through written summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C., recording enquiry minutes in the investigating officer's diary, refraining from harassing individuals called for enquiry/investigation, and adhering strictly to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)]. These guidelines aimed to ensure a fair and lawful investigative process while preventing unnecessary harassment.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Criminal Original Petition with the observations and directions provided in the judgment to address the issues raised regarding alleged harassment during enquiries and investigations.