Sessions court dismisses plea to expunge disparaging remarks against cop in theft case

A sessions court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a Chandigarh Police’s Crime Branch Deputy Superintendent of Police challenging the an earlier trial court order and seeking the expulsion of disparaging remarks against investigating officer in a 2021 theft and criminal intimidation case.

Advertisement

The DSP also prayed for setting aside part of the order giving direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to depute a senior woman officer to investigate the matter.

In the revision petition, the DSP said the trial court made the remarks against investigating officer Inspector Ashok Kumar without affording him an opportunity of hearing.

He added that vide order dated February 13, 2024, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) held that the investigating officer had misused his authority and his conduct was not above board.

The SSP, he noted, was asked to look into the matter and take suitable action against the officer but the JMIC failed to take notice of the fact that the investigation of the case had been transferred from the Sector 36 police station to the Crime Branch vide order dated August 8, 2023.

The JMIC had also directed the SSP to depute a senior woman police officer to further investigate this crime. However, the petioner noted that the Crime Branch did not fall within the ambit of the SSP and such a direction could have been made only to the Inspector General of Police.

The public prosecutor, meanwhile, argued that the FIR in the present case was registered on January 5, 2021, which was investigated by many officers during the period from January 5, 2021 to August 11, 2023. Then the investigation of the case was transferred to the Crime Branch, Chandigarh, which was investigated by Inspector Ashok Kumar, in-charge of Crime Branch.

According to the investigation conducted by Inspector Ashok Kumar, the allegations under 380, 384, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the IT Act were not made out. Accordingly, the cancellation report was presented in the court. Moreover, the investigation was the sole prerogative of the investigating agency and the JMIC failed to take into account the detailed investigation conducted by the investigating officer in the present case. Hence, the remarks passed against the officer in the impugned order were unjustified, unreasonable and were liable to be set aside.

However, Dikshit Arora, counsel for the respondent-complainant, contended that Inspector Ashok Kumar failed to conduct the investigation of the present case in a fair manner and that the JMIC has rightly not accepted the cancellation report and recorded the remarks against the officer.

After hearing the arguments, the session judge Arunvir Vashista said that so far as the passing of the order of further investigation is concerned, the court is found to be perfectly right in doing so upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case in addition to evidentiary material coming on record.

It added that it was well within the domain and discretion of the court to do so especially in view of the fact that the pursuit of uncovering the truth is paramount in the criminal trial process.

So far as the passing of adverse remarks against the investigating officer is concerned, it transpires from the perusal of the order that the JMIC has actually been trying to draw the attention of the investigating agency towards the relevant material evidence that was there but has been left unattended and has not been considered by it.

In the light of above discussion and as an outcome thereof, the revision petition was dismissed.