Further investigation cannot be ordered only due to contradictory witness statements during preliminary enquiry: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that further investigation cannot be ordered merely for the reason that there are contradictions in the statements given by witnesses during the preliminary enquiry (Asoka Kumar S v. State of Kerala and Ors.)..Single-judge Justice R Narayana Pisharadi said that the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary enquiry may not be exhaustive since the purpose of such enquiry is only to ascertain whether the information received discloses any cognizable offence."Therefore, omissions in such statements, cannot be a reason to find that the witnesses have created a new story at the time of investigation of the case. Further investigation cannot be ordered merely for the reason that there are contradictions in the statements made by the witnesses with reference to the statement given by them during the preliminary enquiry", the Court held. .The Court further held that if a court disagrees with the opinion of the investigation officer and decides to order further investigation, it must specifically point out the deficiency in the investigation."When the Court disagrees with the closure report and orders further investigation, the Court shall specifically point out the matters left out and not investigated. The Court shall pinpoint what all matters were not investigated by the police and what aspects require further investigation. It is not enough to make a general observation that the investigation conducted was incomplete or defective," the order stated. .The order was passed on a petition preferred by an Excise Commissioner who was the first accused in a case registered against him by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) The case was initiated after a woman who was booked by him, alleged before the Magistrate's court that the petitioner and certain others had illegally obtained money from her. Subsequently, the Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge who directed the VACB to conduct a preliminary enquiry in the matter..While the preliminary enquiry and further verification ordered by the special court stated that no further action was necessary, the woman objected to the reports of the VACB, pursuant to which the special court directed that a case be registered against the accused and an investigation be conducted..This investigation also concluded stating "further action dropped" but the special court did not accept this either and yet again issued an order and directed that further investigation be conducted. .The petitioner then (first accused) approached the High Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to set aside the order of the special court and accept the final report..Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj, appearing for the petitioner, contended that there is no scope for further investigation as the matters have already been thoroughly investigated by VACB.He also argued that when the investigating officer has based his opinion on the materials collected during the investigation and when such opinion depicts a reasonable view of the matter, the special court would not be justified in issuing a direction to conduct further investigation..The High Court opined that, if the special court finds that the opinion formed by the investigating officer is not based on a full and complete investigation, it has ample powers to direct further investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC.In the instant case, the special judge had passed an order stating the reasons for directing further investigation but the High Court found that the same were not valid ..Pertinently, the special judge had highlighted the omissions in the statements given by the witnesses during the preliminary enquiry conducted by the VACB. The High Court held that omissions in statements at the stage of preliminary enquiry may not contain all the details and therefore, is not a valid ground to order further investigation."Even when there is suspicion against a person, during the investigation, if sufficient evidence cannot be collected against him to send him for trial, it would be a futile exercise to conduct further investigation into the same aspects," the Court said.After considering the case on merits as well, the Court set aside the order of the special judge and ordered that the closure report be accepted. .[Read Order]