Parallel Enquiry U/Sec 36 of CrPC is not Maintainable During Pendency of the Investigation: Madhya Pradesh HC
The parallel inquiry under Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable while the probe is ongoing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court decided.
The petition filed to order the respondent/police authority concerned to file/submit the FIR report (final report) before the court issue was being handled by the Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia bench.
The prosecutrix/respondent number 4 filed a police report in this case, saying that the petitioner had violated Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC.
Although the inquiry is ongoing, the SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind, presented his report and determined that the FIR filed by the prosecutrix is fake, according to Sri R.P. Singh Kaurav, Counsel for the Petitioner. In light of this, it was suggested that the Investigating Officer be instructed to submit the closure report.
The respondent’s attorney, Sri Devendra Chaubey, said that it is a well-established legal principle that the simultaneous investigation, even under Section 36 of the CrPC, is unmaintainable.
Despite this, it was claimed that the S.P., Bhind independently gave the SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind permission to undertake a parallel investigation. The report is also invalid because the parallel investigation was not authorised, and the investigating officer is unable to check into it.
The bench cited the case of Deepak @ Preetam Verma and others vs. State of M.P. and others, where it was decided that conducting a parallel probe while an investigation is ongoing is not maintainable.
According to the High Court, “the concurrent inquiry under Section 36 of the CrPC is not maintainable during the course of the investigation. It is remarkable that S.P., Bhind once more instructed the SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind to undertake a parallel investigation despite a clear judicial ruling. It is impossible to understand this S.P. Bhind move. The report submitted by SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind is invalid and cannot be included in the police case diary or the investigation, however, as a parallel inquiry during the pendency of the investigation is not maintainable. As a result, the Investigating Officer cannot be instructed to look into the report submitted by the SDO(P), Lahar, District Bhind.
As a result, the bench dismissed the petition and gave the investigating officer the go-ahead to submit the final report, charge sheet, and closure report in accordance with Section 173(1) of the CrPC.
Mahendra Kumar Vaidya
vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh
