The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has strongly condemned the practice of conducting parallel police inquiries during an ongoing criminal investigation, declaring such procedures legally impermissible.
The case arose from a bail application filed by the accused in connection with an FIR registered in Narmadapuram district, alleging offences of rape and other charges under Sections 64(1), 331(4), 332(B), 127(2), 75(1)(i), 351(3), and 331(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The applicant relied on a report from a parallel enquiry conducted by the SDO (P), Itarsi, which stated that the prosecutrix’s allegations do not appear to be correct, indicating false implication. The Court, however, directed him to address the Court as to whether a parallel enquiry during the investigation is admissible or not.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia held that such parallel inquiries are not maintainable under law, reiterating earlier High Court rulings in Preetam Verma and Anr. Vs. State of MP & Anr., MCRC No. 12592 of 2018, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Surendra Singh Gaur Vs. State of M.P. (SLP (Cri) No. 1345/2019). The Court noted that the inquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police (SDO(P), Itarsi) was fundamentally flawed, as it was carried out without recording the prosecutrix’s statement and in violation of established legal procedure.
7. Thus, it is clear that parallel enquiry during pendency of investigation is not maintainable, but still Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram in complete ignorance of law directed for parallel enquiry. Furthermore, SDO(P) Itarsi, District Narmadapuram gave his report without recording statement of prosecutrix. How SDO(P) can criticize a person behind her back and he did not even care to record her statement before coming to conclusion that allegations made by prosecutrix are false.
8. Thus, it is clear that SDO(P) Itarsi, District Narmadapuram is not aware of the basic law that not only parallel enquiry is not maintainable but even before criticizing a person, he should be given an opportunity.
9. It is really shocking that the post of SDO(P) Itarsi, District Narmadapuram was used for giving a frivolous report in favour of applicant and that too when such a procedure is not acceptable under law
Calling the report “shocking” and “frivolous,” the Court observed that the police had acted in ignorance of basic legal principles. It directed that the parallel inquiry report must not be considered by the trial court for any purpose.
While the applicant ultimately withdrew the bail plea, the Court ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police (DGP) to highlight serious concerns regarding investigative practices in cases involving grave offences such as rape.
Appearances
Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for applicant.
Smt.Swati George, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State
