Probe into alleged dhaba assault shifted to Kolkata Police’s Anti-Rowdy unit after court flags major investigative lapses

The petitioner alleged that her brother was assaulted at Jai Hind Dhaba on 31 December 2023.

The resulting FIR charged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 324, 326, 307, 379 and 34 IPC

After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against four persons under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 and 34 IPC; the dhaba’s two owners were shown as absconding

The petitioner challenged the investigation, citing the failure to secure CCTV footage, pursue the owners’ non-compliance with a notice under Section 91 CrPC, examine the doctor, or identify independent witnesses

The State’s status report stated that notices and raids had been undertaken, but CCTV footage had not been provided and the named owners remained untraced

The petitioner sought, among other relief, transfer of the investigation to another agency

Whether the disclosed investigative omissions justified directing further investigation by officers unconnected with the original investigation.

Whether filing the charge sheet and the pendency of the trial prevented the Court from ordering further investigation and regulating trial proceedings in the interim.

Article 21 encompasses the right to a fair and complete investigation.

Under Section 173(8) CrPC, further investigation may be ordered even after a charge sheet is filed or the Magistrate has taken cognizance; the power may be exercised at different stages, including during trial (*Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat*, (2019) 17 SCC 1, paras. 38–43; *Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna*, (2009) 7 SCC 685, para. 15).

Constitutional courts may, in the interests of complete justice and a fair investigation and trial, direct further investigation or reinvestigation even after filing of the charge sheet (*Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra*, (2023) 5 SCC 802, para. 42; *Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh*, 2022 INSC 720, paras. 46–47).

Transfer is not warranted merely because a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome; the Court must assess whether the record discloses material investigative deficiencies.

The Court found that the police report disclosed unresolved gaps, not merely dissatisfaction with the charge-sheet outcome.

The owners, identified as principal accused, had not been effectively traced or examined; the failure to provide CCTV footage was not pursued despite its apparent relevance; the doctor who examined the complainant was not examined; and the investigation identified few, if any, independent witnesses despite the incident occurring in a busy location.

The charge sheet did not explain why these matters remained unresolved.

Taken collectively, the omissions undermined confidence in the investigation and justified further investigation by officers unconnected with the original inquiry.

Filing the charge sheet did not bar that course under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The Officer-in-Charge was directed to hand over the case diary, documents and seized articles within one week of communication of the order.

The trial court was directed not to proceed in C.G.R. Case No. 3971 of 2023 until the supplementary investigation report was filed; any interim bail hearing for an absconding accused who surrendered was to take place with the Public Prosecutor instructed by the investigating officer and the de facto complainant.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations and made no order as to costs.