Investigating Officers Are Empowered to Record Supplementary Statements to Ascertain Truth and Clarify Facts

The revisionists challenged an order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the CJM, Aligarh, which rejected a police final report and summoned them for gang rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376-D and 506 of the IPC.

The complainant alleged that on 28.01.2018, the revisionists offered her a lift from Pari Chowk, Noida, to Aligarh, but instead took her to a mustard field and raped her at gunpoint.

Following a statutory investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) filed a final report citing lack of medical corroboration, a 46-day delay in the victim's statement, and evidence of a personal vendetta involving a third party, Dina @ Dinesh Kumar.

The Magistrate rejected this report and summoned the revisionists based on the protest petition.

Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the maintenance of case diaries.

Paragraph 109 of the U.P. Police Regulations, which empowers an Investigating Officer to record supplementary statements to clarify facts or variations from the FIR.

The landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which established that criminal proceedings attended with mala fide or instituted maliciously to wreak vengeance must be quashed.

The Court observed that the Magistrate’s order was silent on critical discrepancies, such as why the victim chose a non-standard route via Noida where public conveyance to Aligarh is unavailable.

The Court noted the IO’s discovery that the contact number provided by the victim belonged to the father of Dina @ Dinesh Kumar, a known enemy of the revisionists, suggesting the victim was a proxy in a personal vendetta.

The High Court criticized the Magistrate’s finding that the IO lacked authority to record additional statements, clarifying that Paragraph 109 of the U.P. Police Regulations expressly permits "Majid Bayan" (further statements) to ascertain the truth.

The Court found the protest petition lacked evidentiary support, as the complainant failed to file affidavits from the alleged eyewitnesses to counter the IO’s findings.

It held that the impugned order suffered from material irregularity by failing to consider the mala fide nature of the prosecution and the legal validity of the supplementary investigation.

The trial court was directed to pass a fresh order in light of the High Court’s observations, specifically addressing the nexus between the complainant and the revisionists’ enemies and the logistical implausibility of the complainant's narrative.