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 Excessive Courtroom has refused to entertain a writ petition looking for reinvestigation or alteration of costs in an alleged assault and disrobing case, directing the petitioner to pursue cures earlier than the trial courtroom.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar noticed that the petitioner had an ample alternative earlier than the trial courtroom to lift her grievances, and that writ jurisdiction can’t be invoked except a manifest error or miscarriage of justice is established.
“In that background, intervention by this Courtroom that too in train of writ jurisdiction just isn’t required as cost sheet has been drawn on the power of an investigation course of which isn’t said to be tainted one. The petitioner with out agitating these features earlier than the trial Courtroom, seeks this Courtroom’s intervention as the identical is sure to trigger prejudice to the accused,” it held.
The petitioner had approached the Excessive Courtroom alleging that the police had performed a biased investigation, omitting so as to add costs beneath Part 354 IPC (assault or legal pressure to a girl with intent to outrage her modesty) in opposition to personal respondents Nos. 6 to eight.
The courtroom held that the prayer for reinvestigation or alteration of the cost can’t be entertained beneath writ jurisdiction, particularly when the trial is but to begin and the petitioner has ample authorized recourse earlier than the trial courtroom.
It mentioned that each one submissions raised right here could be suitably taken earlier than the trial courtroom, whether or not on the stage of framing of costs or throughout trial.
The Courtroom emphasised that the writ jurisdiction beneath Article 226 just isn’t meant for correcting mere factual errors or intervening in each investigative determination except there’s evident illegality, malice, or miscarriage of justice.
The Courtroom additionally referred to the Supreme Courtroom’s judgment in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander, reiterating that supervisory jurisdiction could be exercised solely in distinctive circumstances the place there’s a manifest error or gross failure of justice.
The incident concerned a property dispute whereby the complainant claimed she was disrobed and assaulted after an altercation over tree-cutting.
Nonetheless, the police, of their closing report, said that the allegations have been exaggerated and motivated by previous enmity and that the precise altercation concerned solely a scuffle throughout a heated argument, with no incident of disrobing.
Petitioner alleged that the police had colluded with the accused and didn’t bear in mind her Part 164 CrPC assertion earlier than the Justice of the Peace.
APPEARANCE:
Rohit Kumar Parihar, Advocate for Petitioners
Case-Title: Parveen Begum vs UT of J&Ok, 2025
