Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand

matter be cancelled and not taken on record of the trial court.

2. As per the record, the Applicant lodged FIR No. 394 of 2022 alleging that he was called to the residence of co accused Lata Kargeti where he was wrongfully confined and assaulted by one Lata Kargeti and others, including one Paras. It was further alleged that the Applicant was forced to sign certain papers and was threatened with dire consequences.

3. Investigation in FIR No. 394 of 2022 was concluded, and the charge sheet was filed on 10.11.2022. Cognizance has been Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 2024, Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand – 1 Ashish Naithani J. taken, and charges have been framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar, on 27.10.2023 in Criminal Case No. 496 of 2023, and the matter is presently at the stage of trial.

4. The gravamen of the Applicant’s grievance is that despite being a named accused in FIR No. 394 of 2022 and despite the specific allegations against him, investigating agency segregated the name of Paras from the charge sheet and included him as a prosecution witness, which, according to the Applicant, reflects a biased and unfair investigation.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the investigation carried out in FIR No. 394 of 2022 is fundamentally flawed as the role attributed to Paras has been improperly omitted from the charge sheet without any legal basis. It is contended that the investigating officer has not recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC and has, without following the mandatory procedure under Section 306 CrPC, treated a named accused as a witness.

6. It is further submitted that both FIR No. 394 of 2022 and FIR No. 395 of 2022 pertain to the same incident, same time and same place. Therefore, the segregation of one accused from one case and his inclusion as a witness in the other case indicates a prejudiced and lopsided investigation.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant argued that the investigation is vitiated and does not satisfy the standard of fairness required under the law. It is submitted that the Applicant, as the victim of the offence, has a right to a fair and unbiased investigation and that the present investigation does not inspire Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 2024, Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand – 2 Ashish Naithani J. confidence. It has also been argued that unless the investigation is reopened, the Applicant will suffer prejudice during trial since Paras, who is said to be a named accused in the FIR, is now projected as a prosecution witness, which, according to the Applicant, legally impermissible and detrimental to the prosecution case.

8. Learned State Counsel opposed the application and submitted that the investigation has already culminated in a charge sheet dated 10.11.2022 and that the learned Judicial Magistrate has framed charges on 27.10.2023. Therefore, the prayer for de novo investigation cannot be entertained at this stage when the matter stands ripe for trial.

9. It is submitted that the prayer of the Applicant to cancel the existing police report, or to direct that it not be taken on record, is legally untenable, inasmuch as the report has already been acted upon by the trial court. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to delete or nullify an investigative report that has merged into the judicial proceedings.

10. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that no material has been placed on record to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or grave irregularity in the investigation so as to warrant interference under Section 482 CrPC. It is argued that the allegations of unfair investigation relate to matters which can be adequately addressed during trial and do not call for reopening of the investigation at this stage. Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 2024, Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand – 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the record.

12. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the Applicant is that the role attributed to Paras, who is specifically named in the FIR, has been omitted from the charge sheet, and that he has instead been cited as a prosecution witness.

13. It is a settled principle that the decision as to whether a particular individual should be arrayed as an accused or cited as a witness lies within the domain of the investigating officer, subject to judicial scrutiny at the stage of cognizance and trial.

14. In view of this settled position, the contention of the Applicant that the omission of Paras from the list of accused renders the investigation biased or incomplete cannot be accepted. The mere fact that he has been cited as a witness rather than an accused does not, by itself, furnish any basis to infer unfairness or ulterior motive in the investigation. Whether the segregation of Paras from the array of accused persons was appropriate, whether his testimony supports or contradicts the prosecution story, and what effect such testimony may ultimately have on the merits of the matter are issues that the trial court is fully competent to examine.

15. The evidentiary value of the statement of Paras, the plausibility of the role attributed to him, and the consistency of his version with the FIR and other material are matters to be adjudicated by the trial court during the course of trial upon appreciation of evidence. These issues cannot be examined in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 2024, Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand – 4 Ashish Naithani J. exercise of inherent jurisdiction, particularly after the case has progressed to the stage of evidence.

16. It is significant that the investigation stands concluded and the charge sheet has been submitted. The learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance and has framed charges on 27.10.2023. Once charges are framed, the proceedings enter the domain of the trial court.

17. Judicial interference at this stage by directing a de novo investigation would not only unsettle the statutory progression of the proceedings but would also amount to reopening matters that now fall within the exclusive domain of the trial court. The Applicant has not demonstrated any glaring irregularity, violation of any mandatory statutory requirement, or material to indicate that the investigation was conducted in conscious disregard of legal principles.

18. The prayer for cancelling the existing charge sheet or directing that it not be taken on record is equally misconceived. The charge sheet, once filed and acted upon by the court of competent jurisdiction, becomes part of the judicial record. The High Court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, cannot order the effacement, withdrawal, or cancellation of such a report. The inherent power is not intended to rewrite the investigative record or to substitute the court’s satisfaction with speculative allegations concerning the sufficiency of the investigation.

19. The Applicant has not produced any substantive material show mala fides, predetermined outcome, deliberate Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 2024, Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand – 5 Ashish Naithani J. suppression of evidence or manipulation of the investigation. A mere allegation that a named accused was not charge-sheeted does not constitute a ground for a de novo investigation unless supported by cogent material demonstrating a grave miscarriage of justice. The Court is not persuaded that such a threshold is met in the present case.

20. A de novo investigation is an exceptional relief and is ordinarily directed only where the investigation is shown to be wholly perfunctory, illegal, or tainted by demonstrable bias. The material on record does not indicate that the investigation in the present case suffers from any such foundational defect. The concerns raised by the Applicant can be adequately addressed during trial, wherein the Applicant shall have full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, challenge inconsistencies, and raise all permissible contentions. ORDER In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out to warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for directing de-novo or fresh investigation in FIR No. 394 of 2022 or for cancelling the final report submitted in Criminal Case No. 496 of 2023. The Criminal Miscellaneous Application is accordingly rejected. It is clarified that the trial court shall proceed strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence adduced Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 2024, Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand – 6 Ashish Naithani J. before it, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. Dt: 10.11.2025 SB (Ashish Naithani J.) Criminal Misc. Application No. 87 of 2024, Suraj Chaudhary alias Satpal Singh v. state of Uttarakhand – 7 Ashish Naithani J.