Addiio

02.Ge

FIR No.894/2024
State v. Shivanshu Dhyani
13.01.2025 PS IGI Airport

Present: Sh. Lalan Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.

Sh. Prashant Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the
applicant/accused.
IO absent.

Status report-cum-reply of the IO received.

This is an application seeking monitoring of the
investigation in case FIR No. 894/2024 which is registered
against the applicant/accused. The following prayers have been
made in the present application:
"A. Appoint an independent officer to supervise the
ongoing investigation to ensure its fairness and impartiality;
B. Direct the investigating agency to consider all the
evidence, including the exculpatory evidence submitted by the
applicant;
C. Seek periodic reports from the investigating
officer regarding the progress and direction of investigation; and
D. Pass any other or further order that this court may
deem fit in the interest of justice."
Submissions heard.
Reply of the IO perused.
The grievance of the applicant appears to be that the
exculpatory materials which is in existence may also be taken
into consideration during investigation. The applicant wants to
rely upon whatsapp chats, videos and other materials which are
annexed alongwith the application. Reply of the IO suggests that
not all the materials have been taken into consideration and the
 facts which are alleged by the IO have not been
enquired into.
Though, it is prerogative of the investigating agency as to
how a
particular case has to be investigated but the purpose of the
investigation is to unearth the truth. It was held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of
Guiarat AIR 2019 SC 5233 that Article 21 of
Constitution of
India demands that a fair and just
investigation must be
conducted. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Bihar v.P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 222 that the
purpose of
investigation is the discovery of the truth i.e. proof of
commission of crime. It was held in Babubayiv. State of Gujarat,
2010 12 SCC 254 that the investigation into a criminal offence
must be free from objectionable features or infirmities which
may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused
that the investigation was unfair and carried out within ulterior
motive. It was further held that investigating officer is not merely
to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may
enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real
unvarnished truth. In a recent decision, Hon'ble J&K High Court
in Ajay Kumar Agarwal v. UT of J&K, WP (C) No. 821/2022,
dated 12.05.2022, has held that"primary object of the
investigation under the code is collection ofevidence inrelation
to the allegations under investigation. Power of the police to
investigate and procedure for investigation is delineated in
Chapter XIl of the code. Indisputably, any investigation intothe
crime should be fair and impartial and in accordance with law. It
provide
iS only a fair and impartial investigation that can
foundation of afair trial. Fair investigation and fair trial are as
these are for the victims and
much necessary for the accused as
public at large. The
public at large too has its
impartial and unbiased stakes in far,
of the crime. I is, investigation
thus, the
and trial against the
oftender
of the requiremnent ofboth Article 14 and 21
Constitution India that the investigation
of
the police in the crime is
fair, impartial and conducted by
the conduct of a fair trial unbiased leading to
against the offender of the law." It was
further observed by Hon'ble High Court that
the officer-in
Charge of the police station will be well within its right to
direct
a person including an accused to
attend and produce any
document or other thing for the purpose of investigation
exercising power u/s 91 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble High Court
specifically held that any documentary or oral evidence produced
before the investigating officer during the course of investigation
by any person including the accused which is relevant, necessary
or desirable for the purpose of investigation cannot be thrown out
by investigating officer by seeking shelter u/s 91 Cr.P.C. (now 94
BNSS).
In view of the above proposition of law, there is no
bar in the prosecuting agency taking material from the accused
which appears to be necessary for discovering the truth about the
allegations. As already observed above, the SHO can exercise
powers u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to direct the accused to produce evidences
which are relevant for the purpose of investigation. The reply
filed by the IO is silent about whether all the materials which are
filed alongwith the application were taken and considered for the
purpose of the investigation. Whether or not, the materials relied
upon by the applicant/accused would prove or disprove the
allegations would be a matter of investigation but merely because
it is the accused who is in possession of the evidence relevant for
the investigation, shouldnot be a ground not to take
such
evidence during the course of investigation.
Accordingly,
application partly allowed only to the extent that the I0 shall
is
the
take the material relied upon by the
applicant/accuscd into
consideration for the purposes of investigation. Needless to
mention that the conclusion, after taking all the
evidences, about
the truth of the allegations is left to the
wisdom of the
investigating officer.
SHOPS IGI Aiport is directed to cause compliance
of this order and as already observed above, he may take
recourse to Section 94 BNSS for production of the materials
relied upon by the accused from the accused.
The application stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be sent to SHO PS IGI Airport for
compliance.

(PRANAV JOSHI)
ACJM-01/PHC/ND
13.01.2025