The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to order a fresh investigation into the corruption case against former Punjab minister Sunder Sham Arora, holding that an investigation cannot be presumed to be biased merely because it was conducted by an officer subordinate to the complainant. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya, presiding over the case, dismissed the petition seeking a de novo investigation by an independent agency, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to establish any miscarriage of justice.
Background of the Case
Arora initially sought the quashing of the FIR registered against him on October 15, 2022, under the Prevention of Corruption Act at the Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-I police station in Mohali. The petition also challenged the final report/challan dated December 3, 2022, and the order dated August 29, 2023, passed by the Mohali Special Judge dismissing Arora’s application seeking discharge from the case. However, during the hearing, Arora’s counsel confined the prayer to seeking a fresh or de novo investigation by an independent agency.
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the investigation was conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police subordinate to the complainant, an AIG who had submitted the complaint to the Chief Director of the Vigilance Bureau. According to the counsel, this inherent bias rendered the investigation tainted, as the subordinate officer could not be objective or impartial. Specific flaws were highlighted, including the investigating officer’s failure to record the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant, failure to use electronic devices to collect relevant material, absence of independent witnesses, and registering the FIR based on the same allegations as the complaint without verification.
Court's Observations
Justice Dahiya noted that the sole premise for seeking a direction for re-investigation was that the investigation carried out by an officer subordinate to the complainant was bound to be biased. The court rejected this contention, stating that it is too far-fetched to accept that a subordinate officer would always be biased in investigating a complaint filed by his superior. The court further held that “such a view would be outlandish amounting to drawing a presumption against the professional ethics and duties every officer has to stand by.”
The court also noted that the legislature has not proscribed an investigating officer from investigating his/her superior’s complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and found no justification to hold otherwise. Moreover, there was no allegation of personal bias or wrongdoing against the investigating officer. The court observed that “assumptions cannot replace hard facts” and cannot serve as a basis to order re-investigation.
Legal Precedent and Conclusion
Reiterating settled law, the High Court held that an invalid investigation is not a ground to order re-investigation after cognizance of the offence has been taken, unless miscarriage of justice is established. The court found that the lapses pointed out by the petitioner, even if assumed to exist, do not constitute a miscarriage of justice. Considering the material collected during the investigation—which prima facie indicates the petitioner’s presence at the chosen place to meet the complainant with currency notes recovered and sealed in the presence of witnesses—the court stated that the prosecution is not without probable cause nor an outcome of sheer malice. The court added that it is for the trial court to ascertain whether ingredients of the alleged offence have been established beyond any reasonable doubt despite any lapses in investigation.
Concluding, the High Court held that in the facts of the case, it cannot be accepted that the investigation is biased and vitiated merely because it was conducted by an officer subordinate to the complainant. The court also clarified that its observations were only for deciding the petition and would have no bearing on the pending trial.
