A fair legal system depends on the integrity of its investigations. Law enforcement's evidence gathering is crucial for protecting the innocent and holding the guilty accountable. However, investigations can face challenges like procedural unfairness and a lack of thoroughness. Therefore, court oversight is vital to prevent abuses and maintain the legal framework.

While the judiciary ultimately decides guilt or innocence, investigating agencies primarily gather evidence. Courts don't control investigations but monitor them to prevent legal violations. This ensures agencies follow procedures and avoid errors that could taint evidence and trial fairness. Investigations are left to the agency's discretion, as long as they stay within legal boundaries.

Judicial monitoring is especially important when there are claims of improper investigation or overlooked evidence. For example, if an eyewitness identifies Mr. A's car in an accident, and ATM footage captures the incident, the investigating officer should review the footage and interview the ATM security guard. If the officer fails to do so, questions arise about the investigation's impartiality. In such cases, the court can step in to ensure a proper investigation.

The State must protect its citizens, support victims, and prosecute cases fairly. Courts monitor investigations to ensure this duty is fulfilled, protecting rights, upholding justice, and maintaining public trust. The goal is to ensure thorough investigations for just criminal resolutions.

Ultimately, pursuing justice requires integrity in the investigation process. While law enforcement agencies are primarily responsible for fact-finding, their actions are overseen by the courts, who ensure that they protect fundamental rights and are not compromised by deficiencies or malfeasance.

One critical aspect of this oversight relates to the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), the foundational document that sets the wheels of criminal justice in motion. Instances where police station unjustifiably refuses to register an FIR, particularly when credible information disclosing a cognizable offence is brought to their attention, represent a serious impediment to justice. Such inaction can effectively shield potential offenders and leave victims without recourse.

Recognizing this vulnerability, legal provisions exist to empower aggrieved individuals. If a police officer in charge of a station declines to record the information, the informant can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police concerned.

Upon being satisfied that the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the Superintendent of Police/Deputy Commissioner of Police can either investigate the case themselves or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to them, in the manner provided by law. This mechanism underscores the importance of ensuring that the investigative process is initiated promptly and fairly, without arbitrary obstruction.

If the Superintendent of Police (SP) or Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) fails to take action, the complainant has the option to petition the relevant Judicial Magistrate for FIR registration under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

Judicial oversight plays a crucial role in ensuring that investigations are conducted thoroughly and expeditiously. While investigating agencies have the necessary authority to perform their duties, including examining witnesses and collecting evidence, this authority is not absolute.

Superficial or intentionally flawed investigations can severely compromise potential prosecutions. The judiciary retains the power to intervene when investigations are demonstrably inadequate or overlook critical aspects. This intervention is not about micromanaging the investigation but rather about ensuring that all necessary steps are taken to uncover the truth, adhering to the law and making a genuine effort to uncover the facts.

Consider a case where Ms. L accuses Mr. M of sexual assault in his office, filing an FIR. Despite the availability of CCTV footage and the suspect's alleged attempts to tamper with mobile phone location records, the investigating officer appears inactive. In such a situation, Ms. L can seek the Magistrate's intervention to direct the police to conduct a proper and effective investigation, including securing the CCTV footage and mobile phone location records.

This judicial oversight is grounded in the constitutional right to a fair trial. A compromised investigation can irreparably harm either the prosecution or the defence. Courts act as guardians of this right, ensuring that investigations are not used for harassment or to shield the guilty. By monitoring investigations, the judiciary reinforces that justice must be rooted in a fair and impartial inquiry, where all relevant evidence is diligently collected and considered.

The primary objective of any criminal investigation is to discover the truth. A diligent investigator should meticulously follow the evidence trail to uncover the reality of the events in question. This is not a mere formality but a crucial endeavour that should guide the investigator closer to the truth.

An investigating officer must remain objective, gathering and analysing evidence impartially. They should avoid fixating on preconceived notions or manipulating evidence to fit a desired narrative. If, after a thorough inquiry, no incriminating evidence emerges, the investigator can initiate action against the complainant for making false accusations.

The duty of the investigating officer extends beyond finding incriminating evidence. They must also preserve crucial evidence that could either implicate or exonerate the accused.
Mobile phone location records, for example, can be vital in establishing an individual's presence at a specific location. This digital evidence is often ephemeral and can be deleted from telecom servers. Neglecting to secure this information promptly could lead to the irretrievable loss of crucial evidence.

Recognizing this vulnerability, the law allows the accused to seek court intervention. If an investigating officer fails to act diligently in preserving crucial digital evidence, the accused can request the Magistrate to direct its preservation. The Court can then issue necessary directions to the investigating agency to secure the mobile phone location records.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently safeguarded citizens' rights through its judgments. A landmark case that reinforced the Court's authority to oversee police investigations is Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., where it was affirmed that a Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - now Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 -encompasses the ability to monitor investigations and issue appropriate directives.

If a Magistrate determines that the police have either completely neglected their investigative duties or conducted a deficient investigation, the Magistrate possesses the authority to issue explicit directives to the police force. These directives mandate a thorough and proper investigation, compelling the police to rectify their shortcomings.

Furthermore, the Magistrate's role extends beyond simply issuing instructions. They retain the power to actively monitor the progress and quality of the reinvestigation, ensuring that the police comply with the court's orders and diligently pursue a just resolution to the case. This oversight mechanism safeguards against police negligence and promotes thorough and accountable law enforcement practices.

Section 156(3) CrPC / 175(3) BNSS grants Magistrates broad authority to ensure proper investigations, including the power to order FIR registration and direct thorough investigations when police efforts are inadequate. This section encompasses all incidental powers needed to achieve a proper investigation. Both aggrieved complainants/victims and even accused individuals can petition the Magistrate to monitor the investigation for the protection of their respective rights.

Both the High Court, leveraging its inherent authority under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) - and its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the Supreme Court, utilizing Article 32 of the Constitution or its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, are empowered to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of police and other officers to oversee and guarantee the integrity of an investigation. This power is particularly relevant when accusations of partiality, incompetence, or insufficient diligence are leveled against standard investigative bodies.

The active role of the court in such instances underscores the importance of ensuring that the investigating officer remains vigilant and proactive in safeguarding all relevant evidence, regardless of whether it supports the initial complaint or points toward the innocence of the accused, ultimately upholding the rule of law and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Reference:

1. Investigation to Trial, Abhilash Malhotra, Lawmann’s.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565