Read Time: 09 minutes

In a complaint filed by a wife accusing her husband of forcing her into unnatural sex, the Karnataka High Court on Monday observed that the investigation has been so shoddy that a further investigation is needed. Court called it a classic case of shoddy investigation. 

A bench of Justice  M Nagaprasanna noted that "it is a case where the head of the department, either the State or the Commissioner of Police should take stock of such shoddy investigations by investigating officers, who either lack competence or deliberately indulge in such investigations."

The order has been passed in a plea filed by a wife seeking direction to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City to issue instructions to cyber-crime Police Station Bangalore to continue further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and to submit supplementary chargesheet in respect of offences under Section 377 IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act within a stipulated period. 

However, in another petition, the husband sought direction to quash proceedings in the matter, wherein, the High Court Court has granted an interim order of stay of all further proceedings against the husband.

The counsel appearing for the wife submitted that the chargesheet deliberately dilutes the complaint against the husband by deleting offences under Section 377 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act. Even though the complaint made by the petitioner was in such graphic details and as such, the chargesheet could not have been filed in complete dilution of the complaint, he argued.

The Counsel further submitted that Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act ought to have been invoked as the transmission of obscene material by the husband was clearly brought out in the complaint, as he has transmitted obscene pictures of his wife to her father and two of her friends.

It was further argued that the Police could not have investigated the offences under the IT Act and they had to be investigated by the Cyber Crime Police in the light of Section 161,CrPC statement of the complainant and her father.

The counsel appearing for the State Government argued that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer did not divulge any of the offences that were alleged against the husband in the complaint. It is for that reason, that all the other offences were given up and an only offense under Section 498A of the IPC was retained, he submitted.

In addition to this, the counsel appearing for the husband contended that no case is made out by the petitioner for involving the husband for offences other than Section 498A of the IPC and as such, the Police have correctly invoked the proper provision.

The bench opined, "If the complaint registered at Raipur and the statements recorded by the Police at Raipur are juxtaposed with the findings of investigation/final report filed by the Police, it would unmistakably reveal gross variance."

"The graphic details in the complaint and the contents of the statements recorded by the Police are completely thrown to the winds by the Investigating Officer," the bench added.

It further noted, "It is high time the head of the Department sets its house in order, by appropriately dealing with such investigating officers on the departmental side."

About this, the bench directed the Commissioner of Police to conduct further investigation into the matter and transfer the case to another Investigating Officer. The bench further asked for the submission of the report of the further investigation within two months.

The wife had alleged that from the beginning of marriage the behavior of her husband was torturous for having anal sex/unnatural sex, and to perform such unnatural acts the husband used to abuse, assault and torture her.

In addition to this, it was alleged that the husband also forwarded obscene pictures of her to the Facebook account of her father and also to his WhatsApp number, and also to two of her friends. It is at that juncture the wife registered a crime before the police at Raipur for offences punishable under Section 498A, 377, 34 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Party names have been withheld