If investigator is charged with filing false case whenever there is acquittal, investigating authority's independence will be affected: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently had occasion to observe that the independence of the investigating officer would be affected if in every case of an accused being acquitted, the investigating officer is exposed to allegations of filing false charges under Section 211 of the IPC (A Radhika v Wilson Sundaram)..The Court made the observation while quashing a summons issued to a CBCID officer who was accused of committing the offence under Section 211 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after the complainant was acquitted in a case that was investigated by the officer. .Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that the complainant's grievance was that he was made to unnecessarily undergo the agony of a malicious prosecution. Since the prosecution was investigated by the CBCID officer, the complainant wanted rope her as well as if the said officer prosecuted the false charge, the Court further noted. .Expressing that such cases ought not to be foisted on investigating authorities, Justice Venkatesh observed:."If investigating officers are going to be exposed to such proceedings in all cases where the accused persons are acquitted from all charges, it will directly interfere with the independence of the authority in conducting an investigation. This is the reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santokh Singh’s Case (cited supra) held that the words 'false charges' must be read along with the expression 'institution of criminal proceedings', which relates back to the initiation of criminal proceedings and it can never be related to an alleged false charge framed after the filing of the final report.".The Court reiterated that a case for filing of a false charge with intent to injure would only lie against the person who initiated the criminal proceedings. ."The language used under Section 211, I.P.C. regarding false charge can only relate to the original or initial accusation through which the criminal law was set in motion. Admittedly, it was not the Petitioner who had set the criminal law in motion," stated the order..In the case at hand, the Judge opined that the complainant may file a civil suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution. However, a criminal complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) would not lie against the investigating officer, the Judge ruled. .Therefore, the Court quashed the summons issued to the CBCID officer."...the offence under Section 211, I.P.C. has not been made out against the Petitioner. The Respondent cannot pick and choose certain observations made by the trial court and this Court, and make it a basis for filing an application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. to punish the Petitioner under Section 211, I.P.C....The grounds for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution cannot form the basis for filing a petition under Section 340, Cr.P.C. since it has to independently satisfy the requirements of Section 195(1)(b), CrPC," it observed. .[Read Order]