Karnataka High Court sets deadlines for police, probe agencies in State to complete investigations

In what could be an unprecedented order, the Karnataka High Court recently set deadlines for the police machinery and other probe agencies in the State to complete investigations in petty offences and serious crimes within a period of 60 days and 90 days respectively [Sujit Mulgund vs Superintendent of Police]..Single-judge Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav issued detailed guidelines for the police and also the Judicial Magistrates to probe criminal cases without any delay so as to avoid any kind of prejudice either to the accused or the complainant.The bench emphasised on the need to impart professional training to police officers to probe cases involving financial frauds, money laundering and crypto currency."Offences may be categorised into petty offences, serious offences and heinous offences. As regards petty offences, time limit of 60 days could be fixed for completion of investigation which could be extended by the Special Judge or Magistrate upon request made, assigning reasons for extension of time for investigation to be completed. As regards serious and heinous offences, time limit of 90 days could be stipulated," the judge said.In the event the investigation is not completed within the time prescribed and the superior officer is of the opinion that there are no justifable reasons for completion of the investigation, power can be exercised under Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the superior officer, the Court added. Section 36 provides that police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his stationIf the probe isn't completed within the stipulated time, the judge said, the authorities could take recourse to Section 20(c) and (d) of the Karnataka Police Act."A complaint could be made to the State and District Police Complaint Authority. In fact, delay in completing investigation can be a ground to invoke Section 20(C) in terms of the Explanation to Section 20(C)(7). This would ensure accountability of the investigating officers," the judge said.The guidelines were issued by the court while dealing with two petitions, one filed by former member of legislative assembly (MLA) Abhaykumar Patil from Belgavi south challenging orders passed by a Magistrate ordering FIR against him in a private complaint filed by Sujit Mulgund..The elaborative guidelines further emphasised on the need to bifurcate police personnel into i) ones who would be tasked with investigation of crimes and ii) who would look after law and order."Setting up separate investigation wing with dedicated personnel in police stations with necessary training imparted so as to inculcate professionalism in investigation. They may be subjected to training relating to modus operandi in commission of crime, strategies of unearthing crimes and their detection, and steps to be taken to familiarise them with necessary knowledge relating to technology involved in commission of cyber crimes, money laundering and corruption offences," the Court stated. The judge further underlined the need to effectively implement the Witness Protection Scheme in order to overcome fear and reluctance on the part of public to be arraigned as witnesses."The delay in investigation and consequent delay in trial, places the complainant as well as the witnesses in a vulnerable position and the protection mechanism requires to be evolved," the judge opined..Apart from these, the bench also issued the following guidelines:- The Magistrate / Special Judge can invoke power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to ensure investigation is expeditious and pass appropriate directions where the investigation appears to be procrastinated to the prejudice of the complainant and would have the effect of derailing the probe.- Where grievance relates to non-registration of first information report and application under 156(3) has been filed, same may be disposed off within a period preferably not exceeding 30 days as relief sought for itself is relating to non-registration of FIR.- The Magistrate at the stage of extension of remand under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. could enquire regarding stage of Investigation.- Prosecutor is required to take a call on whether there is a need for examination of multiple witnesses on the same aspect of the case.- Necessary mechanism needs to be designed to implement the mandate of Order No.1550, 1550 (2), 1551 (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Police Manual.- The Authorities concerned may consider having provisions for the purpose of speedy and effective probe by framing Regulations in lines of Police Regulations Bengal, 1943- In cases involving influential public personalities, resort to Section 164 Cr.P.C., should be made more frequently.- The investigating officer shall bring to the notice of Magistrate the bottlenecks, if any, that are coming in the way of speedy investigation including the attempts being made by the accused to hinder the investigation. The Magistrate shall, apart from taking such steps as are permissible under law, for example, issuing summons for the production of documents in the custody of suspect, accused or a third party, may also send a report to the District Judge for appropriate action on the administrative side to eliminate delays.- The State is required to take steps for the implementation of the Witness Protection Scheme in terms of the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Chawla and Others..Advocate Nitin Bolabandi appeared for complainant..[Read Order]