BABUBHAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT ETC & Ors.

A 155/08 occurred at a different place. Thus, High Court reached the correct conclusion and the second FIR C.R.No. 1-155/2008 was liable to be quashed. [Paras 18, 19 and 20) [670-A-H] 8 Ram Lal Narang vs. Om Prakash Narang and Anr. AIR 1979 SC 1791; T. T. Antony vs. State of Kera/a and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181; Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 292; Rameshchandra Nandla/ Parikh vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 732; Nirmal Singh C Kah/on vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441 - relied on. D

2.1 Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non- .interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the E co.urt must interfere. [Par:a 34) [679-8-C]

2.2 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 F with an ulterio·r motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding .any kind of mischief and harassment to any ·Of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication G of evidence, and his impartial co.nduct must dispel any suspicion as. to its genuineness. The .Investigating Officer "is not 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". [Para 25) [675-8-D] H BABUBHAI v, STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC.. 655 R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; A Jamuna Chaudharyand Ors. vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822; Mahmood vs. State of UP. AIR 1976 SC 69; State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260; Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Megha/aya and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3275; K. Chandrasekhar vs. State of Kera/a and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC B 223; Ramachandran vs. R. Udhayakumar and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 413; Nirmal Singh Kah/on vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441; Mithabhai Pashabha! Patel and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332; Kishan. Lal vs. Dharmendra Bafna (2009) 7 SCC 685 - relied on. C

2.3 Where the court comes to the conclusion that there was a serious irregularity in the investigation that had taken place, the court may direct a further investigation u/s. 173(8) Cr.P.C, ·eyen transferring the investigation to an indepen·dent agency, r.ather than D directing a re-investigation. "Direction of a re investigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction. " Unless an extra-ordinary case of gross abuse of power by those in charge of the investigation is made out, the E court should be quite loathe to interfere with the investigation, a field of activity reserved for the police and the executive. Thus, in case of a ma/a fide exercise of power by a police officer, the court may interfere. The scheme of investigation, particularly; Section 173(8) F Cr.P.C. provides for further investigation and not for re investigation. Therefore, if the Court, comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner with an object of helping a party, the court may direct for further investigation and ordinarily not .for re- G investigation. (Paras 30, 31 _ and 33] [678~0-G; 679~8]