A.Charles vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, A. Charles, filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction to the respondent police to secure accused persons and conclude the investigation in Crime No. 208 of 2019. The petitioner alleged that his employee, the first accused, misappropriated Rs. 18,39,320/- by issuing full GST receipts to customers, leading to a shortage of funds. The first accused admitted to handing over the money to other accused. A complaint was lodged, and the case was registered under Sections 408, 468, 420, and 34 of the IPC. Despite some accused being granted bail or having bail applications dismissed, and a partial payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the first accused, the investigation had stalled for several months. The petitioner sought to expedite the conclusion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

Held

The Court considered the submissions made by both parties. The respondent police indicated that the investigation was nearing completion and a final report would be filed soon. Taking this into account, the Court issued a direction to the respondent to conclude the investigation and file a final report before the competent jurisdictional Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the alleged misappropriation or the specific roles of the accused, focusing solely on expediting the investigative process. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the Court granted the relief sought in terms of directing the conclusion of the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent police to expedite the investigation and file a charge sheet in Crime No. 208 of 2019, considering the delay in concluding the investigation and the petitioner's prayer for a direction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that despite the registration of the FIR and the lapse of several months, the investigation had not progressed, and the accused had not been apprehended or the full amount recovered. Therefore, a direction was necessary to ensure the conclusion of the investigation. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the investigation was almost complete and the final report would be filed shortly. They prayed for an appropriate order.