The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the police’s authority for further investigation does not extend for the mere “reinvestigation” or “fresh investigation” to be started ab initio.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently clarified the scope of police powers regarding further investigation, emphasizing that such rights do not extend to initiating a ‘re-investigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’ from the beginning. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta articulated this distinction, highlighting that the objective of further investigation should not be to establish the defense of the accused.
Read Also: Supreme Court Imposes 30-Year Prison Term on Convict for Raping 7-Year-Old Girl in Temple
This clarification came as the Delhi court deliberated on a petition by an accused challenging a lower court’s decision to reject his request for further investigation in a rape case. The petitioner had sought to explore the possibility of ‘honey trapping’ and extortion by the complainant, who alleged that after meeting the accused via a dating app and engaging in a sexual relationship under the pretext of marriage, she became pregnant, later the accused blocked her contact.
Justice Mendiratta observed that the accused had not previously lodged any complaint of extortion, nor provided substantial evidence to support the claim that the complainant was involved in a ‘honey trapping’ scheme. Consequently, the court found no substantive evidence to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), focusing on the essence of further investigation to uncover the truth and ensure justice through the fair trial.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Looks into Mystery of ‘Planted’ Earrings in Murder Case
The principle for further investigation lies with the jurisdictional court, based on the specifics of each case and aimed at facilitating a fair trial. It reaffirmed that the pursuit of further investigation is to gather evidence and ascertain the truth, rather than to restart the investigation process anew or to establish the accused’s defense.
“While denying the petition for Further investigation under section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court set aside the order and having said that, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit costs of Rs.20,000, “
Read Also: Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Case on Bihar’s Caste Survey in April
This ruling reinforces for fair trial and the careful consideration required before directing further investigation, ensuring that such measures are in the interest of justice and not for the purpose of revisiting concluded inquiries without substantial grounds.
CASE TITLE: PIYUSH AGARWAL v. NCT OF DELHI
