Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Hyderabad High Court has held that a charge of fabricated criminal prosecution cannot stand on merely the defence used by the accused in the allegedly fabricated criminal case. The accused cannot use this charge to delay or derail the investigation conducted by the prosecution.
The case in question concerned a lawyer, who filed a plea against investigating officers, claiming that they had lodged several criminal complaints against him on mala fides. He then argued before the High Court claiming that there had been no action against these officers, despite orders from the Court. He relied upon the rule laid down in the Lalitha Kumari Judgement, where the Court had stated that once the magistrate issues a direction to the police to make an investigation and file a report, the concerned police officer is obliged to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation. However, the Bench comprising of Justice V Ramasubramanian and Justice J Uma Devi dismissed these contentions, observing that the lawyer’s intention was to merely derail the investigations carried out against him. The Bench stated that if a case of fabricated evidence is to be sustained, the accused in that case must provide a finding recorded by the trial court. Further, the Court rejected the reliance placed on the Lalitha Kumari decision, rationing that the decision does not contemplate a situation where the investigation is ordered against an investigating officer itself. The Court came to the conclusion that the evidence for the prosecution in a particular case cannot be first subjected to scrutiny in another criminal case.
86540
103860
630
114
59824