No Investigating Officer Can Flout Procedural Requirements, Proclaim To Be Law Unto Himself: Bombay HC
“No Investigating Officer can flout procedural requirements and proclaim to be law unto himself,” as held by the Bombay High Court, with relevant case laws.
Explanation:
1. Role of Investigating Officer (IO) and Procedural Requirements
The Investigating Officer is the backbone of the criminal justice system.
IO’s role is to investigate allegations fairly, thoroughly, and impartially following the law and procedural safeguards.
The procedure is laid down in statutes like the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Indian Evidence Act, and relevant special laws.
These procedures ensure:
Protection of accused’s rights.
Fair investigation.
Prevention of abuse of power.
2. Procedural Safeguards Are Mandatory
Procedures such as:
Conducting investigation within stipulated time.
Recording statements properly.
Following arrest and custody rules.
Seeking prior sanction where required.
Observing rights of the accused during investigation.
These are not mere technicalities but fundamental safeguards to ensure justice.
3. Investigating Officer Cannot Proclaim Himself as Law
IO cannot act arbitrarily or outside the scope of law.
Acting as “law unto himself” means disregarding procedural norms and acting with unchecked discretion.
This threatens the rule of law and violates principles of natural justice.
Courts repeatedly stress that IOs must act within the legal framework.
4. Bombay High Court’s Stand
The Bombay High Court has held that:
“No Investigating Officer can flout the procedural requirements prescribed by law and proclaim himself to be a law unto himself.”
Such conduct leads to:
Illegal detention or arrest.
Fabrication of evidence.
Abuse of process of law.
Violation of fundamental rights.
Relevant Case Laws:
1. State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
Supreme Court laid down guidelines to check malafide or arbitrary investigations/arrests.
Investigation must follow the prescribed procedure and cannot be used as a tool for harassment.
2. Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP, (1994) 4 SCC 260
Arrest and investigation must follow due procedure.
IO cannot act arbitrarily or exercise unchecked power.
3. Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 569
Investigation must be conducted in a fair, unbiased, and lawful manner.
Procedural safeguards must be respected at all stages.
4. Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1
Supreme Court held that police officers cannot ignore mandatory procedural steps like registering FIR on cognizable offences.
Investigating officers must act within the law.
5. Bombay High Court — Ramesh Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)
The Court reaffirmed that IO cannot act arbitrarily or flout procedural rules.
Investigations must be free from personal biases and comply with due process.
Summary:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Investigating Officer’s Role | Must conduct fair, impartial, and lawful investigations. |
| Procedural Requirements | Mandatory to protect rights and ensure justice. |
| No Arbitrary Action | IO cannot act beyond or against the law. |
| Rule of Law | IO’s power is limited by statutes and constitutional rights. |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts can intervene if IO flouts procedures or acts malafidely. |
Do write us for more information if you need.
RELATED Blog
0 comments