Entrusting Investigation To Particular Agency Is At Court’s Discretion; Accused Has No Right Of Hearing As Regards Manner & Method Of Investigation: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court was considering the application filed by the applicants seeking their addition as parties to the writ petition on the ground that they were proper and necessary parties.
The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that an accused has no right of hearing as regards the manner and method of investigation save under certain exceptions. The High Court also held that the matter of entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion of the Court.
The High Court was considering the application filed by the applicants seeking their addition as parties to the writ petition on the ground that they were proper and necessary parties.
The Single Bench of Justice Suvra Ghosh held, “In a catena of judgments including the authority relied upon by the applicants, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the accused has no right of hearing as regards the manner and method of investigation and save under certain exceptions, has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. Even in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report, till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code and in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to participate till the process is issued. The matter of entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion of the Court.”
Advocate Ayan Bhattacharjee represented the Petitioner while Advocate Swapan Kumar Dutta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The applicant in CAN 1 of 2025 lodged an FIR against the petitioner pursuant to which the investigation commenced. In the writ petition, the petitioner did not seek quashing of the FIR or protection from coercive steps. The petitioner sought an investigation with regard to the complaint lodged by him against Utpal Chowdhury, Dipshika Chowdhury (applicants in CAN 2 of 2025). The petitioner claimed that the Bhowanipore Police Station had been activated at the instance of the high-ranking officials of the Police Authorities who were allegedly acting in collusion with Utpal Chowdhury and thereby, called up the Petitioner to appear without issuing any formal notice. Thereafter when the Petitioner visited the police station, he was shown a letter/complaint submitted by one A. Dutta, who is the nephew of Utpal Chowdhury.
The said complaint was filed on the basis of a counterfeit money receipt which contained forged signatures of the petitioner. The Petitioner tried to lodge the complaint against such counterfeit money receipt before the Bhowanipore Police, but the same could not be done, for which the petitioner wrote an email and also sent a letter requesting the police authorities to register an FIR. The Petitioner submitted that any complaint which was registered at Bhowanipore Police Station at the instance of Utpal Chowdhury would be nothing but a counterblast to the complaint, and as such, the same deserved to be quashed.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that in a catena of judgments the Supreme Court has observed that the accused has no right of hearing as regards the manner and method of investigation and save under certain exceptions, has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The Bench held, “Section 175(3) does not grant an opportunity to the accused of being heard.”
“Section 223(1) deals with complaints to Magistrate and not complaint before the police officer and is not applicable in the present case. The applicants in CAN 2 of 2025 being the prospective accused in the complaint lodged by the petitioner are not entitled to demand a right of audience in the petition.”, it added.
The Bench noted that the applicant in CAN 1 of 2025 is the complainant in the FIR lodged against the petitioner. Considering that the petitioner did not seek quashing of the said FIR and did not intend to press his prayer in connection thereto, the Bench held that the applicant cannot be termed as a necessary or proper party in the writ petition. The Bench thus dismissed the applications.
Cause Title: Arnab Paul v. The State of West Bengal (Case No.: CAN No. 1 of 2025)
Appearance
Applicant: Advocates Ayan Bhattacharjee, Gourav Ghosh, Shounak Mondal
Respondent: Advocates Swapan Kumar Dutta, Rajat Kumar Dutta, Tithi Paul, Abhratosh Majumder, Sourav Chatterjee, Sayan Sinha, Adil Naser, Ranajit Chowdhury, Sampoorna Saha, Amajit De