***

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. –

1. The petitioner No. 1 is having estranged relations with her husband, and, also with her in-laws. She has lodged FIR No.55 of 20.06.2020, at Women Police Station, Sector-17, Chandigarh. The FIR supra is embodied in Annexure P-1.

2. The petitioners in the instant petition seek the making of the hereafter mandamus upon the Investigating Officer concerned:-

(a)   For adding offences punishable under law which are prima facie made out from FIR No.55 of 20.06.2020.

(b)   For transfer of investigations from the Investigating Officer instantly conducting them to some other independent agency as the co-respondent No.7 is aligned to high profile police officials, bureaucrats and politicians, and, that there is every likelihood of his influencing the investigation, as underway into FIR supra.

3. Uncontrovertedly, the investigations, into the offences, as carried in FIR (supra), are still underway. Therefore, facie hence the preemptory direction(s) (supra), as claimed in the petition cannot be granted by this Court. The reason being that, the domain of investigation(s), and, also the manner of their conducting, lies squarely within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer concerned, and, that the above exclusive jurisdiction vested in the investigating officer concerned, to hold investigations into the offences supra, cannot be either fettered, nor can become trammeled by this Court, through its coaching, mentoring and guiding the investigating officer concerned. Fortified strength to above inference is readily drawable from the apposite therewith provisions, as become encapsulated in the Cr.P.C. However, the above is, yet with a rider, inasmuch as upon, evident, and, palpable material suggestive of the investigations (supra) rather being done with active mala fides or becoming actuated by some extraneous considerations.

4. In taking the above view, this Court find support from a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case titled as “Divine Retreat Centre Vs. State of Kerala”, and, to which Criminal Appeal No.478 of 2008 became assigned.

5. In the above verdict, the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized, that the High Court cannot direct the police as to how investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, it is also expostulated therein, that the High Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in the midstream and appoint any other Investigating Officer.

6. Be that as it may, it has yet to be fathomed from the material existing on record, and, that whether it makes palpable veicings qua the Investigating Officer concerned being actuated by malice, and/or his conducting the investigations for extraneous considerations, and, that there is hence every likelihood of a coloured, and, skewed investigation rather being conducted into the offences, as, carried in FIR supra. Though in the above endeavour, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of this Court, to the factum of co-respondent No.7, being linked to high profile police officers, bureaucrats and politicians. Furthermore, he has also though drawn the attention of this Court, to averments carried in paragraph 6 and 7 of the petition, paras whereof stand extracted hereinafter. However, insofar as the incident averred in paragraph 6 of the petition is concerned, it cannot at this stage be, meted any credence, as there is no mention with any specificity about dates and timings about the happening of the incident, as mentioned therein.

“6. That since the date of moving the complaint on 29.08.2018, the petitioner and her family members were harassed by the police by calling them for investigation but the entire focus of the police to compel the petitioner to enter into compromise with the accused persons. It is also pertinent to mention here that respondent husband and father-in-law slapped, dragged the petitioner in the police station in presence of investigation officer and other police staff when she refused to enter into compromise. But no action has been taken by police of police station at sector-17 despite her repeated requests.

7. That the respondent husband is drug addicted and drunken who uses to abuse, slap, kick the petitioner. One of the incident has been occurred on night of 04.08.2019. The matter has been reported to police and D.D.R. No.54 dated 04.08.2019 had also been lodged against respondent husband. The husband and petitioners did not adhere to compromise of treating her in a proper manner. Copy of DDR is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3.”

7. Even the incident narrated in paragraph 7 of the petition, refers to a compromise becoming drawn in pursuance to DDR 54 of 04.08.2019, and, that it not being adhered to. Consequently, the very factum of DDR No. 54 of 04.08.2019 rather resulting in a compromise is obviously suggestive that hence, the Investigating Officer, did not proceed to hold any further investigations into DDR supra, and, that naturally no malice or mala fides can become attributed to him.

8. Paramountly, both the incidents supra are purportedly preceding the lodging of writ FIR supra, and, when for reasons (supra) though the investigations, if any, made into above incidents, are prima facie not demonstrative of biases and mala fides hence weighing with the Investigating Agency concerned. Therefore, merely on anvil of the incidents (supra), no firm conclusion becomes spurred, that investigations, as, are underway qua the writ FIR, becoming grooved in the nursing(s) of malafides by the investigating officer concerned against the petitioner. Therefore, any purported biases and mala fides, if any, of the Investigating Agency concerned, and, as purportedly spur from the high profile links of co-respondent No.7, rather merely on the afore score, cannot become construed to taint the underway investigation, unless of course, there is prima facie cogent and reliable evidence, hence demonstrative that the investigations into the extant FIR, are tainted or acquire, or may acquire any potentialized propensity, for rather theirs being conducted in a skewed, biased, and, in an unfair manner. The above evidence is, however, not existing on record. Therefore, the mere connections, if any, of co-respondent No.7 with high profile politicians and bureaucrats, cannot per se, and, if so, be concluded to hold the imminent potentiality of endangerment being caused to the fairness, and, impartiality of investigations being conducted into the writ offences (supra) hence by the Investigating Officer concerned.

9. Emphasizingly, a mere roving, and, nebulous allegations qua co-respondent No.7 being connected with high profile politicians, bureaucrats and police officials, cannot sway this Court, to conclude, to order, for change of investigation from the present Investigating Officer concerned, to some other independent agency. Predominantly also when neither the above high profile connections, are named with specificity, nor obviously, when no credible evidence qua theirs' influencing the investigations, is rather forthcoming, at this stage.

10. Even otherwise, if at any stage the afore allegations are prima facie supported by credible evidence, thereupon, and/or if all the allegations made in the FIR, are not being investigated either in a fair or unbiased manner by the Investigating Officer concerned, and/or, the Investigating Officer concerned, untenably exculpates the guilt of the accused qua some of the offences carried in the FIR, and/or, he chooses to inculpate them qua only some of the offences concerned. Thereupon, the remedy as available to the petitioners is to either ask for, through an application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., becoming filed by them before the Court concerned, and, that too, only after a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., being filed by the Investigating Officer, before the Court concerned, whereins, there are untenable exculpations of the accused, rather both for change of the Investigating Officer concerned, and/or, for further investigations being conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned. Resultantly, and, obviously, the afore remedies are to be canvassed at the appropriate stage, before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction, and, cannot become canvassed, at this stage, before this Court, as, thereupon this Court would breach the relevant statutory provisions. Even if the investigating officer files a closure report before the Magistrate concerned, thereupon too, the petitioner would hold a remedy to make a protest against its acceptance hence by the learned Magistrate concerned.

11. Therefore, insofar as the making of the afore made directions are concerned, they cannot be granted to the petitioner, and nor this Court, can proceed to order the official respondents concerned, to arrest the respondents concerned, as thereupon the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as encapsulated in the case titled as “D. Venkatasubramaniam and others Vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamchari and another” rendered in Criminal Appeal No.1766 of 2009, would become breached, especially when therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has made a candid expostulation of law, against the High Courts directing the police to investigate the case from a particular angle, and/or, to arrest the accused and submit charge-sheet.

12. The petitioners also claim for a direction being made upon the co-respondent Nos.1 and 2, to grant them protection against theirs being meted threats by co-respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8. Even the afore claimed mandamus cannot be granted by this Court, as there is no credible evidence, at this stage before this Court, rather in personification of potentialized life endangering threats, if any, becoming meted to the petitioners, by the above respondents. For want of the above evidence, this Court cannot reiteratedly make the afore directions, upon, co-respondents No.1 to 5. However, in the larger interest of justice, if the co-petitioners apprehend the meteing of life endangering threats to them, by co-respondent Nos.6 to 8, thereupon they can make a representation at the appropriate stage, to respondent Nos.1 to 3. Upon the afore representation being made, the co-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, may promptly proceed to, in accordance with law, pass a speaking decision thereon.

13. With the above-made observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.

Order accordingly.

********