Investigative Procedures And Powers
Investigative powers refer to the legal authority given to police and investigating agencies to detect, prevent, and prosecute crime. These powers must balance effective investigation with protection of individual rights under the Constitution.
I. KEY INVESTIGATIVE POWERS
1. Power to Register FIR
Police are empowered to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence (CrPC §154). FIR triggers the criminal investigation process.
2. Power to Investigate (CrPC §§156–173)
Includes:
visiting the crime scene
collecting evidence
examining and arresting suspects
interrogating witnesses
collecting forensic materials
preparing the final report (charge sheet)
3. Power to Arrest (CrPC §§41, 46)
Police may arrest without warrant for cognizable offences but must justify the need, especially after the DK Basu and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.
4. Power to Search and Seize (CrPC §§91–102)
Police may search persons, vehicles, and premises to collect evidence, with or without a warrant depending on urgency.
5. Power to Conduct Custodial Interrogation
Requires remand orders from a Magistrate (CrPC §167). Police custody beyond 15 days is prohibited.
6. Power to use Scientific and Modern Investigative Techniques
Includes:
fingerprinting
DNA analysis
narco-analysis (with consent)
electronic surveillance
cyber forensics
Courts regulate these to prevent violation of privacy and self-incrimination (Art. 20(3)).
II. DETAILED CASE LAW DISCUSSION
1. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013)
Principle: Mandatory registration of FIR in cognizable offences.
Facts:
The police refused to register an FIR despite a complaint regarding kidnapping of a minor child. The matter reached the Supreme Court to determine whether FIR registration is mandatory.
Held:
FIR must be registered when information discloses a cognizable offence.
Preliminary inquiry is allowed only in exceptional cases (e.g., matrimonial disputes, commercial matters).
Importance:
This case ensures that police cannot delay or deny the first step of investigation.
2. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Principle: Scope of investigation and power of courts to quash FIR.
Facts:
A politician alleged the FIR against him was politically motivated and sought quashing.
Held:
Police have unrestricted duty to investigate cognizable offences.
Court laid down 7 categories where FIR can be quashed (e.g., malice, no offence made out).
Importance:
Defines limits of judicial interference in police investigation.
3. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Principle: Right against self-incrimination during interrogation (Art. 20(3)).
Facts:
Former Odisha CM Nandini Satpathy was interrogated by police and asked to answer a large questionnaire.
Held:
The accused has the right to remain silent during police interrogation.
Police cannot force answers that may incriminate the accused.
Women have the right to be questioned in a comfortable atmosphere.
Importance:
Strengthens rights during police interrogation.
4. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Principle: Guidelines to prevent custodial torture and illegal arrest.
Facts:
A PIL highlighted increasing cases of custodial deaths without procedural safeguards.
Held:
The Court issued mandatory guidelines, including:
Police must carry identification
Arrest memo must be prepared
Family must be informed
Arrest details must be entered in the station diary
Medical examination every 48 hours
Importance:
Foundational case for humane and accountable investigations.
5. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
Principle: Restrictions on arrest in offences punishable up to 7 years.
Facts:
In a false dowry harassment case, the accused was arrested without proper justification.
Held:
Police must justify necessity of arrest.
Arrest is not automatic; police must follow CrPC §41A (notice of appearance).
Magistrates must check unnecessary arrests.
Importance:
Prevents misuse of arrest powers.
6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Principle: Narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain-mapping without consent are unconstitutional.
Facts:
Investigators compelled suspects to undergo psycho-analytical tests.
Held:
Compulsory administration violates Art. 20(3) and personal liberty (Art. 21).
These techniques require informed consent and judicial supervision.
Importance:
Regulates scientific investigation methods.
7. Khatri v. State of Bihar (Bhagalpur Blinding Case, 1981–84)
Principle: Right to legal aid and humane treatment during investigation.
Facts:
Several prisoners had their eyes blinded by police using acid.
Held:
State must provide legal aid from the moment of first appearance before a Magistrate.
Custodial brutality violates Art. 21.
Importance:
Strengthened obligations concerning custodial rights and dignity.
8. Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Income Tax) (1974)
Principle: Illegally obtained evidence may still be admissible.
Facts:
Evidence was seized during an income-tax raid alleged to be illegal.
Held:
Indian law does not exclude illegally obtained evidence if it is relevant.
However, the authority may face consequences for illegal searches.
Importance:
Defines boundaries of search-and-seizure powers.
9. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Principle: Fair procedure required under Art. 21 affects all investigative powers.
Facts:
Her passport was seized without giving reasons.
Held:
“Procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.
All investigative actions must meet this standard.
Importance:
Constitutional backbone regulating all police powers.
CONCLUSION
Investigative powers are essential for effective law enforcement, but courts have consistently imposed safeguards to:
prevent misuse
protect individual liberty
ensure fair investigation
The balance between State power and citizens’ rights forms the core of modern criminal procedure.
RELATED Blog
comments