MP HC Upholds Further Probe Into ASI’s Alleged ₹10,000 Bribe Demand, Including Fresh Voice Sample After Inconclusive RFSL Report

Karan Gurjar alleged that the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector investigating a separate complaint, demanded a bribe from him. The investigating agency recorded conversations, registered an FIR under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and later filed a closure report, stating that the transcript disclosed no demand and that the RFSL could not compare the questioned and sample voices because the speech data was inadequate.

The Special Judge rejected the closure report and directed further investigation, including collection of a fresh voice sample. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226, arguing, among other things, that the direction violated Article 20(3) and that no demand was disclosed by the material.

Under Sections 156(3) and 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court may reject a closure report and direct further investigation where the investigation appears incomplete or unsatisfactory; it may not compel the police to submit a charge-sheet or direct a de novo investigation. The court must give brief, reasoned grounds when declining to accept a closure report and ordering further investigation.

A Magistrate considering a final report may accept it, take cognizance, or direct further investigation.

A direction to provide a voice sample does not, by itself, violate Article 20(3).

Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a demand or attempt to obtain undue advantage may constitute an offence.

The Court found that the conversation transcript prima facie reflected a demand for ₹10,000, and that the RFSL had not excluded the petitioner’s voice; it had been unable to form an opinion because the submitted speech data was inadequate and showed substantial intra-speaker variation.

The inconclusive report therefore did not establish that no offence was made out; rather, it supported the conclusion that the investigation was incomplete and that appropriate voice material should be obtained for examination.

Applying the settled power to order further investigation, and the rule that voice sampling does not inherently infringe Article 20(3), the Court held that the Special Judge’s direction was within jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed as meritless, with no order as to costs.