A recent observation by a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court emphasized that Head Constables lack the authority to conduct investigations into criminal cases involving cognizable offenses.

Justice Anil Kumar Upman highlighted that, according to the provisions outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rajasthan Police Rules, only officers holding the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) or higher are authorized to conduct investigations into cases involving cognizable offenses.

In his remarks, Justice Anil Kumar Upman expressed disagreement with a 1998 High Court ruling that allowed police officials below the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) to conduct investigations in cases involving cognizable offenses. He emphasized that such authority is reserved for officers holding the rank of ASI or higher, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rajasthan Police Rules.

Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for a decision by either a division bench or a larger bench.

“Whether an officer below the rank of ASI of Police, can conduct investigation of a case involving cognizable offence(s) and if he is not empowered to conduct investigation in such cases, then what would be the consequences of the investigation conducted by such officer?”

During the hearing of a petition seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the police under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court raised the question regarding the authority of police officials to conduct investigations in cases involving cognizable offenses.

The counsel representing the accused argued that the First Information Report (FIR) was flawed as it had been investigated by a Head Constable, who lacked the authority to do so. Additionally, it was pointed out that the charge-sheet had been filed by the same official, further raising concerns about the validity of the proceedings.

Furthermore, reliance was placed on information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) from the Police Department, indicating that only police officers holding the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) or higher are authorized to conduct investigations into cognizable offenses.

Nevertheless, the Public Prosecutor relied on the 1998 decision of a co-ordinate bench in State of Rajasthan vs Kera & Ors to argue that the Head Constable was well within his authority to conduct investigations into cases involving cognizable offenses.

Taking into account the arguments presented, the Court first examined Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which outlines the procedure for investigation. Additionally, it scrutinized Rule 6.1 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, and discovered that an officer in charge of a police station is authorized by Section 156 of the CrPC to investigate any cognizable offense within the jurisdictional limits. Furthermore, the officer has the authority to assign a subordinate officer to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if required, to undertake measures for the apprehension of the offender.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the information obtained under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) from the Police Department, which clarified that only police officers holding the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) or higher are authorized to investigate cognizable offenses.

The Court noted that no general or special order had been issued by the State government authorizing Head Constables to conduct investigations into cases involving cognizable offenses. Consequently, the Court expressed its opinion that Head Constables are not empowered to conduct investigations of cognizable offenses.

Therefore, the Court disagreed with the decision of the coordinate bench and instructed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Jaipur Bench to present the matter before the Chief Justice for the formation of an appropriate bench to provide an authoritative pronouncement on the question formulated by the Court.

Advocate Samarth Sharma appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Mahala and Advocate Ashutosh Bhatia represented the State.