CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

1 The date when the judgment is reserved 01.04.2026

2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 01.07.2026

3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 01.07.2026

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

Full

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment,

and reasons thereof

Not Applicable

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate,

Mr. S.S. Narula, Senior Advocate, assisted by

Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Advocate,

Mr. Inderjeet Sihag, Advocate, and

Mr. S.S. Kang, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, &

Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

The petition has been filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of: (i) FIR No.19 dated

15.10.2022, registered under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 2

1988, as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’), at Police Station Vigilance Bureau,

FS-I, Punjab at Mohali, Annexure P-1, along with all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom; (ii) final report/challan under Section 173

Cr.P.C., dated 03.12.2022, Annexure P-2; (iii) order passed by learned

Special Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, dated 29.08.2023, Annexure P-14,

whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking

discharge from the case has been dismissed. Further, a prayer has been made

to allow the application for discharge, Annexure P-7.

1.1. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner have

restricted the prayer in the petition, as mentioned in the additional affidavit

dated 23.12.2023 also, only to seeking a direction to the respondent to get a

fresh/de novo investigation of the case conducted through an independent

agency.

2. The aforementioned FIR no.19 was registered on 15.10.2022;

the relevant extract whereof reads as under:

… states that I am Manmohan Kumar, I am posted as Assistant

Inspector General Police at Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-1,

Punjab SAS Nagar. Yesterday on 14.10.2022 at around 6:15 PM

I received a call on my personal mobile phone number

9915029010 from another phone number 9815212222. As this

number was not saved in my mobile, I enquired about the

identity of the person speaking on the other side. On which the

other person told his name to be Sunder Sham Arora and

introduced himself as former-minister and told himself to be old

acquaintance. While talking about the well being of the

families, he told me about the passing away of his wife. On

which I paid condolences. On which he told me to sent the

location of my house but I refused to do so. But he insisted to

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 3

come to my house to share the grief on which I sent him the

location of my house at Zirakpur through whatsapp from my

number 9915029010 to his whatsapp no. 9815212222. After

some time he came to my house and started discussing about

domestic matters. During this time he initiated the topic of case

pending against him of vigilance bureau and told me that I can

save him from this case. He offered me a bribe of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore rupees) in lieu of this and I was

shocked to hear this. He told me that he'll pay half the amount

of Rs.50,00,000/- (50 lakh rupees) on 15.10.2022 and the

remaining amount will be paid afterwards. I never expected this

kind of discussion from him that is why I did not record the

conversation because I never demanded bribe nor I wanted to

take the bribe. Being the officer of vigilance bureau, I remained

silent at that time to take legal action against such person who

was promoting bribery in the society. He left my house after

stating that he will pay the bribe money on 15.10.2022. After he

left, I immediately informed my senior officer regarding this.

Today on 15.10.2022, Sunder Sham Arora, former minister will

come to give me Rs.50,00,000/- (50 Lakhs) as bribe. Sunder

Sham Arora, former minister, has committed the crime of

inducing a government official to perform his duties illegally by

offering him bribe money in return for doing his work. Due to

this, appropriate legal action should be taken against former

minister Sunder Sham Arora, under the provisions of Prevention

of Corruption Act. SD/- Manmohan Kumar dated 15/10/2022,

Attested by Ajay Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance Bureau, F.S-1, Punjab at Mohali dated 15.10.2022,

Police Proceedings:- Today on 15.10.2022, I was present at my

office Vigilance Bureau, F.S-1, Mohali. One application from

Manmohan Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance Bureau, FS-1, Punjab, S.AS. Nagar, son of Late Mr.

Raj Kumar Resident of House No. 8-A, Savitri Enclave,

Zirakpur, District S.A.S Nagar was submitted to the Chief

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 4

Director Vigilance Bureau Punjab. The Chief Director Vigilance

Bureau, Punjab directed the DSP, Vigilance Bureau, F.S-1,

Punjab at Mohali to conduct inquiry on the above complaint.

2.1. After completion of investigation, the police prepared a final

report against the petitioner under Section 173 Cr.P.C., dated 03.12.2022,

and presented it in the Court on 12.12.2022. He was granted regular bail

thereafter vide order dated 28.03.2023, Annexure P-3. However, a copy of

the final report was handed over to him only on 10.05.2023. He claimed that

all the documents relied upon in the report had not been furnished, and

moved an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C., dated 16.05.2023,

Annexure P-5, seeking a direction to the investigating/prosecuting agency to

supply the documents/articles listed in para 2 and 3 of the application. The

same was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 27.07.2023, Annexure

P-6, directing the Vigilance Bureau to furnish the documents to the

petitioner/accused in the interest of fair trial.

2.2. In the meanwhile, another application was filed by the

petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the case,

Annexure P-7. It was primarily on the grounds that offence under Section 8

of the PC Act was not made out against him, nor was the Vigilance Bureau

competent to conduct investigation of the case. Later, a “written note” dated

16.08.2023, Annexure P-9, was submitted before the trial Court taking a few

other grounds; one of which was that investigation of the case had not been

carried out in a fair manner. It had been got conducted by a police officer

who was subordinate to the complainant in the same police station. In effect,

it meant the complainant was investigating his own case, which could not be

permitted under any circumstances. This also established a definite bias and

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 5

lack of fairness in carrying out the investigation, which was even otherwise

lopsided. The application for discharge was duly considered by the trial

Court and dismissed vide a detailed order dated 29.08.2023, which is under

challenge in the instant petition filed on 03.09.2023.

2.3. Thereafter, charge was framed against the acc used on

18.09.2023, and as of now six out of twenty-five prosecution witnesses have

been examined, as stated by learned State counsel during the course of

arguments.

3. In this background, learned senior counsel for the petitioner

have firstly contended that investigation in the case stands vitiated on

account of inherent bias of the investigating officer in favour of the

complainant. The former is an officer subordinate to the latter, who holds an

overbearing influence and records his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)

also. The investigation carried out by such an officer is bound to be one-

sided, lacking in objectivity. It is a case of definite bias as the facts have not

been impartially looked into. This is the reason whatever complaint was

submitted to him, it was accepted as true without carrying out the necessary

investigation requiring collection of evidence relating to commission of the

alleged offence, examining the witnesses, recording their statements, and

finally forming an opinion on that basis whether to send the accused to trial.

The final report has been presented without complying with these mandatory

requirements. The investigating officer has clearly failed in his duties to

carry out a fair and unbiased investigation, to which the petitioner is entitled

as a matter of right. Accordingly, the allegations are required to be re-

investigated by an independent agency or a competent unbiased officer to

ensure free and fair trial of the case which can only be on the bedrock of a

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 6

fair investigation. In support of the contention, they have heavily relied upon

a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in H.N. Rishbud and another v.

State of Delhi, (1954) 2 SCC 934.

3.1. Secondly, it has been contended that the petitioner was unable

to seek re-investigation of the case at an earlier point of time, as the facts

regarding nature of the investigation and the person by whom it had been

carried out, came to his knowledge only after all the documents relied upon

by the investigating agency were furnished to him under order of the trial

Court, dated 27.07.2023. Immediately thereafter, the issue was raised before

the Court by filing the aforementioned “written note”. Therefore, the

petitioner cannot be accused of any delay in seeking direction for

re-investigation at this stage. No other argument has been raised.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has contended that there is no

prayer for re-investigation of the case in the petition which has been filed

against the order dated 29.08.2023, whereby the petitioner’s application

seeking discharge from the case has been dismissed. In the absence of such a

prayer, he cannot be allowed to seek any direction for re-investigation of the

case. Even otherwise, the facts do not justify his seeking any such direction

from the Court. Investigation of the case has been carried out in a fair and

reasonable manner, and the essential ingredients for commission of the

alleged offence have been clearly made out on the basis of material

collected. It was a trap case where the petitioner was caught red-handed with

the bribe money amounting ₹50 lakh, in the presence of witnesses; the

currency notes were duly sealed. In this regard, he has referred to the

following part of the final report dated 03.12.2022:

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 7

… Out of them the person having the heavy structure met the

complainant and both sat in the nearby parked white colored

Innova car. After some time the person having a heavy structure

opened the window and asked the hindu gentlemen who came

with him to give him the bag then the person having a thin

structure took out the bag from the car and gave it to the above

mentioned person. After sometime the shadow witness gave the

pre learned signal. After getting the signal from the shadow

witness DSP Ajay Kumar along with government witness and

the raiding party approached the innova car where the accused

and complainant were sitting at the back seat and were talking.

Then the investigating officer opened the door of the car and

told the hindu gentlemen about his name, position and the

raiding party and instructed him not to make any movement and

said that whatever action will be taken it would be taken

according to the law. Then the investigating officer asked his

name on which he told that his name is Sunder Sham Arora

former minister, Punjab and the complainant told that the bribe

of Rs 50 lakhs which has been given to him by Sunder Sham

Arora is in a bag.

Thereafter in the presence of the witnesses on the demand

of the investigating officer the complainant produced the tarpal

type bag which is printed on both sides with the brand OMNI

Since 1992 and tagline and address of the company etc is

printed before the investigating officer. The zip of the bag was

opened in front of the government witnesses. Out of which a

plain a black colored plain polythene bag containing a white

polythene bag on which SHALIMAR CARRY BAGS and

company and its address was printed out of which bundles of

currency notes of denomination 500/500 and 2000/2000 were

recovered. On counting the bundles, 30 bundles containing

currency notes of denomination of 500/500 (Total-15 Lakhs)

Total 17 bundles containing currency notes of denomination

2000/2000 (Total-34,00,000/-) and one bundle containing 50

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 8

currency notes of denomination of 2000/2000 (Total-1 Lakh)

were recovered. In this manner total 50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakh

rupees) were recovered. Bundle of recovered currency notes

were taken into police possession as evidence vide recovery

memo. Memo was signed by witnesses. At the spot where

Sunder Sham Arora had given bribe rough site plan of that place

without scale was prepared. Due to gathering of the people

there and the spot not being safe therefore investigating officer

along with raiding party took the accused sunder sham arora

and case property and left for police station F.S-1 Punjab at

Mohali. On reaching at police station senior constable Amritpal

Singh no. 13/2020 who brought the ruqa got joined in the

investigation of the case and got his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C

recorded. The accused was joined in the investigation and

interrogated and on finding sufficient evidence to arrest the

accused he was arrested as per procedure. The information of

the arrest of the accused was given to his daughter Shivani on

phone. Memo of arrest and information regarding arrest were

prepared which were signed by the witness. Thereafter, the

personal search of the accused was conducted. … All the

recovered articles were taken into police possession and memo

was prepared which was signed by the accused and witnesses.

xxx xxx xxx

During investigation the blue colored mobile phone brand

Samsung which was recovered during his personal search and

taken by the police possession was taken out from the malkhana

and the screenshots of the incoming/outgoing calls from the

Whatsapp call log were taken and were printed and are attached

with the challan.

During investigation the footage of CCTV cameras dated

15.10.2022 installed at the parking of Cosmo Plaza Zirakpur

were obtained. In this regard pen drive and certificate u/s 65-B

of Evidence act were obtained and attached with the challan.

Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the concerned were recorded and

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 9

attached with the challan. The investigation of the case is

completed.

4.1. Learned State counsel further contended that after presentation

of final report, cognizance of the offence was taken by the trial Court on

12.12.2022. The petitioner filed two bail applications also, but never raised

any objection to the investigation being unfair, biased or tainted in any

manner. Even in the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking

discharge from the case, no such allegation regarding nature of the

investigation was levelled. Therefore, at this belated stage he is not entitled

to seek re-investigation. Lastly, he contended that law laid down in

H.N. Rishbud case ibid. was considered by the Supreme Court in R.A.H.

Siguran v. Shankare Gowda alias Shankara and another, (2017) 16 SCC

126, holding that after cognizance has been taken, trial cannot be quashed

for invalidity of investigation. He has also referred to C. Muniappan and

others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, to contend that trial of the

case cannot be made solely dependent upon the probity of investigation.

5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been

considered and records of the case have been perused.

6. Apparently, the FIR in question has been lodged on a complaint

dated 14.10.2022 submitted by AIG of Police to Chief Director, Vigilance

Bureau, Punjab, who assigned it to Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Vigilance Bureau. The investigation was, accordingly, carried out by the

latter after registration of the FIR in question. The petitioner was caught with

currency notes of ₹50 lakh in the presence of witnesses on 15.10.2022. The

car the accused was travelling in, and his mobile phones were taken in

possession; the CCTV footage of the parking lot of Cosmo Plaza, dated

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 10

15.10.2022, was also obtained. On completion of investigation, final report

dated 03.12.2022 was presented, whereupon the trial Court took cognizance

of the offence on 12.12.2022. On an application dated 16.05.2023 filed by

the petitioner seeking the documents relied upon by the investigating agency

(but not given to him), the same were directed to be furnished vide order

dated 27.07.2023 passed by the trial Court. Thereafter, he moved another

application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the case; it

was on the grounds that the offence under Section 8 of the PC Act was not

made out against him, and the Vigilance Bureau had no jurisdiction to

investigate the case. After filing the application, an additional ground was

raised by way of a “written note”, dated 16.08.2023, that investigation of the

case was biased and tainted as it had been carried out by an officer

subordinate to the complainant. It is noteworthy that the petitioner did not

seek re-investigation of the case even at that time. It was only before this

Court that he raised this plea for the first time through an additional affidavit

dated 23.12.2023.

6.1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner have tried to explain

the delay in raising the objection to investigation by contending that in the

absence of relevant documents, which were furnished to the petitioner only

after the trial Court order dated 27.07.2023, such an objection could not have

been taken by him. The explanation cannot be accepted for the simple reason

that identity/details of the complainant as well as the investigating officer

stood disclosed to the petitioner much prior thereto. The same find mention

in the FIR as well as the challan. The police proceedings which are a part of

the FIR clearly record that DSP, Vigilance Bureau, FS-I, Punjab at Mohali,

has been directed by Chief Director, Vigilance Bureau, to conduct an inquiry

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 11

on the complaint. And it is not the petitioner’s case that he was not given

these documents. Accordingly, there is no basis to contend he was not aware

that the investigation was being conducted by an officer subordinate to the

complainant. Further, despite the documents/material relied upon in the final

report and demanded by the petitioner having been furnished to him in terms

of order dated 27.07.2023, he did not seek re-investigation of the case. The

only prayer in the application was to discharge him from the case; not even

an argument was raised before the trial Court seeking an order for re-

investigation. Before this Court also, initially while filing the petition such a

direction was not sought, and only during pendency of the petition the prayer

was made by way of an additional affidavit, dated 23.12.2023. These facts

lead to an inescapable conclusion that it is only as an afterthought the

petitioner has sought re-investigation of the case at a belated stage, which

cannot be permitted when cognizance of the offence has already been taken

and the case is pending trial.

7. After examining merits of the case also, this Court finds that the

petitioner cannot be held entitled to seek a direction for re-investigation of

the case. The sole premise based upon which the direction has been sought is

that the investigation carried out by an officer subordinate to the

complainant is bound to be tainted due to inherent bias in favour of his

superior/complainant; it cannot be objective or impartial. The subordinate

officer would not question the veracity of allegations levelled by his

superior, and hence his inability to ascertain relevant facts establishing

ingredients of the offences alleged. To substantiate, learned senior counsel

have pointed out flaws in the investigation of the case, like failure of the

investigating officer to record the conversation between the petitioner and

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 12

the complainant, and/or take the help of any other electronic device to

collect relevant material, absence of independent witnesses, registering the

FIR on exactly the same allegations mentioned in the complaint without

verification, etc. This vitiated investigation cannot form the basis of trial.

The argument, however, has no merit due to the following reasons. Firstly, it

stands settled that invalid investigation is not a ground to order re-

investigation of the case after the cognizance of offence has been taken,

unless miscarriage of justice has been established. And the lapses/flaws in

investigation that have been pointed out, even if assumed to be existing, do

not make it a case of miscarriage of justice. It is because, considering the

material collected during the investigation which prima facie indicates the

petitioner’s presence at the chosen place to meet the complainant with

currency notes - recovered and sealed in the presence of witnesses - it cannot

be said the prosecution is without any probable cause, nor can it be termed

an outcome of sheer malice. It is for the trial Court to ascertain whether

ingredients of the alleged offence have been established against the

petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt despite the lapses in investigation, if

any.

7.1. With respect to the proposition of law aforementioned a

reference can be made to R.A.H. Siguran case (supra), which considers

H.N. Rishbud case also. The relevant observations of the Court are as under:

9. In H.N. Rishbud v. State (UT of Delhi) the question

considered by this Court was whether after the court takes

cognizance, trial can be held to be vitiated merely on the ground

that investigation was invalid. Answering in the negative, this

Court held that if the plea of invalidity of investigation is raised

at sufficiently early stage, the court, instead of taking

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 13

cognizance, direct reinvestigation by competent investigating

officer. But, after cognizance is taken, the trial cannot be

quashed for invalidity of investigation.

10. The observations in the said judgment are: (H.N. Rishbud

case, AIR pp. 203-05, paras 9-10)

"9. … If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a

police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory

provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt

that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set

aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be

shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice.

That an illegality committed in the course of investigation

does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the

court for trial is well settled as appears from the cases in

Parbhu v. King Emperor (1944 SCC OnLine PC 1), and

Lumbhardar Zutshi v. R (1949 SCC OnLine PC 64).

These no doubt relate to the illegality of arrest in the

course of investigation while we are concerned in the

present cases with the illegality with reference to the

machinery for the collection of the evidence. This

distinction may have a bearing on the question of

prejudice or miscarriage of justice, but both the cases

clearly show that invalidity of the investigation has no

relation to the competence of the Court. We are, therefore,

clearly, also, of the opinion that where the cognizance of

the case has in fact been taken and the case has

proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent

investigation does not vitiate the result, unless

miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. (italics by

this Court)

10. It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of

the investigation is to be completely ignored by the Court

during trial. When the breach of such a mandatory

provision is brought to the knowledge of the Court at a

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 14

sufficiently early stage, the Court, while not declining

cognizance, will have to take the necessary steps to get

the illegality cured and the defect rectified, by ordering

such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual

case may call for. …

11. The above view has been repeatedly followed in

subsequent decisions of this Court. In Union of India v. T.

Nathamuni [(2014) 16 SCC 285], the position was discussed as

follows: (SCC pp. 289-92, paras 12-17)

"12. It is clear that in the case of investigation under the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, an officer below

the rank of Inspector cannot investigate without the order

of a competent Magistrate. In the present case, order of

the Special Judge was obtained by filing an application.

That order dated 24-9-2009 shows that it was passed on

request and in the interest of justice, investigation

pursuant to such order did not suffer from want of

jurisdiction and hence, in the facts of the case, the High

Court erred in law in interfering with such investigation

more so when it was already completed.

13. The question raised by the respondent is well

answered by this Court in a number of decisions rendered

in a different perspective. The matter of investigation by

an officer not authorised by law has been held to be

irregular. Indisputably, by the order of the Magistrate

investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector, CBI

who, after completion of investigation, submitted the

charge-sheet. It was only during the trial, objection was

raised by the respondent that the order passed by the

Magistrate permitting the Sub-Inspector, CBI to

investigate is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the

investigation conducted by the officer is vitiated in law.

Curiously enough the respondent has not made out a case

that by reason of investigation conducted by the Sub-

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 15

Inspector a serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice

has been caused. It is well settled that invalidity of the

investigation does not vitiate the result unless a

miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. (italics by

this Court)

7.2. Further, concerning the same issue - effect of defective

investigation on a case - reliance can also be placed on the law laid down in

C. Muniappan case (supra). It holds that conclusion of trial cannot be

allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. The relevant

paragraph whereof reads as under:

55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case.

However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse

by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be

given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that

the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for

acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent

investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory

investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the

criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there

has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or

omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there

is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the

prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out

whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it

is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of

finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the

solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The

conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend

solely on the probity of investigation. [Vide Chandrakant

Luxman v. State of Maharashtra, (1974) 3 SCC 626, Karnel

Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518, Ram Bihari Yadav

v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517, Paras Yadav v. State of

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 16

Bihar, (1999) 2 SCC 126, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa

Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715, Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh,

(2003) 2 SCC 518, Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat,

(2002) 3 SCC 57, and Ram Bali v. State of U.P., (2004) 10 SCC

598]

Accordingly, in line with the settled law, in the instant case also the alleged

invalidity of investigation cannot in itself be a ground to seek

re-investigation of the case, as the petitioner has not been able to establish

any miscarriage of justice.

7.3. Secondly, in the cases referred to herein before, including

H.N. Rishbud case (supra), the investigation carried out was invalid as it had

not been conducted by an officer authorised to do so under the statute, which

is not so in the instant case. The investigating officer is not precluded from

conducting the investigation in question; it is not invalid or illegal under any

law. Nevertheless, learned senior counsel have termed the investigation

invalid only because it has been carried out by an officer subordinate to the

complainant. In their view such an officer can never be objective in

investigating the complaint. The argument is seemingly misconceived, as it

is too far fetched to be accepted that a subordinate officer would always be

biased in investigating a complaint filed by his superior, and would act in

breach of his responsibility to be fair and impartial. Such a view would be

outlandish amounting to drawing a presumption against the professional

ethics and duties every officer has to stand by. That is the reason even the

legislature has deemed it appropriate not to proscribe an investigating officer

from investigating his/her superior’s complaint under the Cr.P.C., and this

Court finds no justification to hold otherwise. Also, the view canvassed has

no precedent, nor has any been cited. Furthermore, there is no allegation of

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 17

personal bias or wrongdoing against the investigating officer; the allegations

are, being subordinate to the complainant he cannot act fairly and impartially

in investigating the case. These are mere assumptions as the flaws in

investigation pointed out by learned senior counsel, recorded herein before,

are mere irregularities not sufficient to indicate inherent bias of the officer.

Besides, the allegations against the petitioner have been corroborated by the

material collected and the statements of witnesses recorded during the

investigation carried out. It is a well-known principle that assumptions

cannot replace hard facts and, therefore, cannot serve as a basis to order re-

investigation of the case either. In the absence of any allegation, much less

any tangible material establishing bias, this Court has no reason to believe

that the officer would fail in performing his professional duties in

accordance with law.

7.4. A case in point is the Constitution Bench judgment in Mukesh

Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi), (2020) 10 SCC 120. It dealt with

the issue whether an investigation carried out by the informant himself

would suffer from the vice of unfairness or bias, which would entitle the

accused to acquittal. The Court held that in the absence of any bar in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, it could not be said that the police officer

registering the case caused any prejudice to the accused by lodging the FIR

and conducting the investigation himself. The observations of the Court in

this regard are as follows:

12. Therefore, as such, there is no reason to doubt the

credibility of the informant and doubt the entire case of the

prosecution solely on the ground that the informant has

investigated the case. Solely on the basis of some apprehension

or the doubts, the entire prosecution version cannot be discarded

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 18

and the accused is not to be straightaway acquitted unless and

until the accused is able to establish and prove the bias and the

prejudice. As held by this Court in Ram Chandra [State of

Rajasthan v. Ram Chandra, (2005) 5 SCC 151] the question of

prejudice or bias has to be established and not inferred. The

question of bias will have to be decided on the facts of each

case [See Vipin Kumar Jain] [Union of India v. Vipan Kumar

Jain, (2005) 9 SCC 579].

12.1. xxx xxx xxx

12.2. Similarly, even with respect to offences under the IPC, as

observed hereinabove, there is no specific bar against the

informant/complainant investigating the case. Only in a case

where the accused has been able to establish and prove the bias

and/or unfair investigation by the informant-cum-investigator

and the case of the prosecution is merely based upon the

deposition of the informant-cum-investigator, meaning thereby

prosecution does not rely upon other witnesses, more

particularly the independent witnesses, in that case, where the

complainant himself had conducted the investigation, such

aspect of the matter can certainly be given due weightage while

assessing the evidence on record. Therefore, as rightly observed

by this Court in Bhaskar Ramappa Madar [Bhaskar Ramappa

Madar v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 690], the matter

has to be decided on a case-to-case basis without any universal

generalisation.

Consequently, in the facts of the instant case, as already discussed, it cannot

be accepted that investigation is biased and vitiated merely because it has

been conducted by an officer subordinate to the complainant.

8. In view of the discussion, there is no merit in the petition and it

stands dismissed.

9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s)

disposed of.

CRM-M-45376-2023 (O&M) 19

10. The observations made in the judgment are only for deciding

this petition and will have no bearing on the pending trial.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA)

JUDGE

01.07.2026

Maninder

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No