HC Cannot Order Re-Investigation Until Trial Court Decides On Whether Probe Is Tainted Or Not, Causes Prejudice To Accused: J&K High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition seeking reinvestigation or alteration of charges in an alleged assault and disrobing case, directing the petitioner to pursue remedies before the trial court.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar observed that the petitioner had an adequate opportunity before the trial court to raise her grievances, and that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless a manifest error or miscarriage of justice is established.
"In that background, intervention by this Court that too in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not required as charge sheet has been drawn on the strength of an investigation process which is not stated to be tainted one. The petitioner without agitating these aspects before the trial Court, seeks this Court's intervention as the same is bound to cause prejudice to the accused," it held.
The petitioner had approached the High Court alleging that the police had conducted a biased investigation, omitting to add charges under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) against private respondents Nos. 6 to 8.
The court held that the prayer for reinvestigation or alteration of the charge cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction, especially when the trial is yet to commence and the petitioner has ample legal recourse before the trial court.
It said that all submissions raised here can be suitably taken before the trial court, whether at the stage of framing of charges or during trial.
The Court emphasised that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant for correcting mere factual errors or intervening in every investigative decision unless there is glaring illegality, malice, or miscarriage of justice.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander, reiterating that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where there is a manifest error or gross failure of justice.
The incident involved a property dispute wherein the complainant claimed she was disrobed and assaulted after an altercation over tree-cutting.
However, the police, in their final report, stated that the allegations were exaggerated and motivated by old enmity and that the actual altercation involved only a scuffle during a heated argument, with no incident of disrobing.
Petitioner alleged that the police had colluded with the accused and failed to take into account her Section 164 CrPC statement before the Magistrate.
APPEARANCE:
Rohit Kumar Parihar, Advocate for Petitioners
Case-Title: Parveen Begum vs UT of J&K, 2025