‘Really shocking’: Madhya Pradesh High Court rebukes police over parallel probe to aid rape accused

The order added that it is clear that a parallel enquiry during the pendency of an investigation is not maintainable, but still, the Superintendent of Police (SP), in complete ignorance of the law, directed a parallel enquiry.

Rape case and ‘enquiry’

The matter arose during a hearing of an accused, who was arrested under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for multiple offences, including rape. The petitioner’s counsel sought relief by citing a parallel enquiry report submitted by the SDOP of Itarsi on March 3.

This report, initiated by the SP following an application from the petitioner’s father, claimed the allegations against the accused were incorrect.

Accordingly, counsel for the applicant was directed to address the Madhya Pradesh High Court as to whether parallel enquiry during investigation is admissible or not.

‘How can officer criticise prosecutrix behind her back?’

• The SDOP gave his report without recording the statement of the prosecutrix, the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted.
• How can the officer criticise a person behind her back, and he did not even care to record her statement before coming to the conclusion that the allegations made by the prosecutrix are false, it asked.
• It is clear that the officer is not aware of the basic law that not only is parallel enquiry not maintainable, but even before criticising a person, he should be given an opportunity.
• Accordingly, it is directed that the report of the parallel enquiry shall never be taken into consideration by the trial court for any purposes.

Parallel enquiry not allowed

• In the case of Preetam Verma and Anr v. State of MP & Anr, by order of September 9, 2018, the court has held that a parallel enquiry under Section 36 (powers of superior officers of police) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), during the pendency of the investigation, is not maintainable.
• The order was affirmed by the Supreme Court by an order of January 1, 2022, passed in the case of Surendra Singh Gaur v. State of MP.
• In the case of Mahendra Kumar Vaidya v. State of MP and Others, decided on November 3, 2022, it has been held that a parallel enquiry during the pendency of the investigation is not maintainable under Section 36 of the CrPC.