If the local police have done prudent investigation then the Supreme Court cannot exercise its power so as to make same investigation once again

Ashutosh Rajput | Hidayatullah National Law University | 26th May 2020

Nishu v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 211 of 2013

Facts: 

The petitioner was a minor girl aged 7 and a half years, she was represented by her father. She was kidnapped by nine people who confined her for 15 days. And it was alleged by the petitioner that she had been subjected to rape repeatedly and one of the accused was the constable in Haryana Police. She was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class just after her recovery. The petitioner also alleged that neither copy of the FIR nor the medical reports were furnished to her. And the petitioner filed a writ petition so as to get compensation. The respondent no.1 i.e. the Commissioner of Police stated that they have filed an FIR against the accused on the complaint by the petitioner’s father and the accused people have been arrested. The respondent no. 2 and 3 have asserted that the complaint was filed as soon as the petitioner filed the complaint and several statements of the petitioner were duly recorded before the court. The petitioner contended that after recovery of the girl she was detained in the police station till her statement were recorded and despite being it a serious offence the police conducted it impartially. The respondent contended that they have confined all the nine accused under sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Issue: 

Whether the Supreme Court can exercise its power, if the Haryana police have already investigated the case? 

Judgment:

As per the Superintendent of Police, the charge sheet was filed before all the nine accused, and applying jurisdiction under Article 32 will wholly be inappropriate and the order of the trial court against them is not disputed and consequently writ petition stands disposed.