'Prime Facie Dangerous': Gujarat High Court Directs Action Against Cop Who Gave Probe Papers To Complainant Before Filing Chargesheet

Noting that a complainant in a criminal case was given investigation papers by the Investigating Officer before filing of chargesheet, the Gujarat High Court directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to take action against the erring cop. 

The court said that either the officer did not know of the settled law or had perhaps acted with ulterior motive, adding that the act prima facie appeared to be dangerous and must be curtailed at the initial stage. It thus directed the concerned SP to submit compliance report on action taken against the erring police officer. 

The court passed the order while denying anticipatory bail to a co-accused in the concerned FIR for offence of criminal breach of trust. 

Justice Divyesh A Joshi in his order noted that as per the record, the complainant had filed an affidavit to oppose the anticipatory bail application of petitioner and along with it he had supplied the statements of the witnesses. It said,

"Therefore, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has inquired about the status of the matter and came to know that the charge-sheet is not filed. Therefore, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Parikh for the original complainant had made a statement that complainant would like to explain from where did the complainant had received the copies of the statements of the witnesses, by way of filing an affidavit. Thereafter, the complainant has filed an affidavit and bare perusal of the contents of the said affidavit clearly go on to show that the investigating officer concerned had supplied the copies of the statements of the witnesses on demand being made by the complainant".

It said that after FIR, complainant's role gets over and the ball is in the court of the IO and except the IO none of the parties gets access to the police papers (investigation papers) and even the complainant in a criminal matter typically gets access to the investigation papers after filing of the charge-sheet before the competent Court.

"The aforesaid settled proposition of law should have been well within the knowledge of each and every investigating officer. In spite of that, before the registration of the charge-sheet before the competent Court and during the course of investigation, the investigating officer concerned had supplied copies of the statements of the witnesses to the complainant. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the said act and action of the investigating officer concerned clearly goes on to show that either he is oblivious upon the fact of the settled proposition of law and/or with some ulterior motive, he has acted in a particular manner. Both the eventualities, prima facie, seem to be very dangerous and therefore this Court is of the opinion that the said practice adopted by the police is required to be curbed at the initial stage. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that a copy of this order is required to be sent to the Superintendent of Police concerned for taking necessary action against the erring police officer/s".

The court directed the DGP to issue a circular in this regard and inform the Police Commissioner/Superintendent of Police of all the Districts to impart training for awareness of the police officers with a sole intent to prevent this kind of incident in future.

The petitioner was booked as a co-accused in the FIR for offence of criminal breach of trust, wherein complainant was the employer of the first accused .The prosecution had alleged that accused no. 1 in the case in connivance with the applicant, had misappropriated more than Rs. 80 Lakh from the complainant.

It was alleged that  accused No.1 was serving as an accountant in the rice mill of the complainant since last 14 years and as a reliable and trustworthy person, complainant has given the passwords of his various banks accounts to him. 

For carrying out any bank transactions, the OTPs were received by the complainant on his mobile phone, which he used to give it to the accused No.1 and after entering the OTPs, transactions were taken place between the parties.

The applicant said that complainant is the owner of two rice mills and by mortgaging both the mills, took a loan from a nationalized bank and as he was unable to repay, appropriate proceedings have been instituted by the bank and the accounts of both the mills have gone into NPA and premises were sealed. 

Applicant said that these facts have not been disclosed by the complainant. He submitted that applicant is innocent and not directly or indirectly connected with the commission of crime and he has wrongly been dragged into the offence by the complainant.

The court however said, 

"In the opinion of this Court, the said contention taken by the learned advocate for the applicant is misconceived in view of the facts of the present case. I have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other materials relied upon and referred by the learned APP as well as learned Senior Advocate Mr. Parikh for the original complainant during the course of hearing of this application which prima facie suggest involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case as also the fact that investigation is still going on, the present application deserves to be rejected". 

It thus rejected the anticipatory bail plea. 

Case title: HIRENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI PATEL vs  STATE OF GUJARAT 

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Darshit Brahmbhatt

Counsel for State: APP Hardik Soni

Counsel for complainant: Senior Advocate Devan Parikh, advocate Shrenik Jasani

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 129