Madhya Pradesh High Court Slams Police For Parallel Inquiry, Discrediting Prosecutrix Without Hearing

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has strongly deprecated the practice of conducting parallel enquiries during the pendency of a criminal investigation, observing that such exercises are not only impermissible in law but can also undermine the fairness of the investigative process.

The Court made these observations while dealing with a bail application filed by Arpit Chourey, who had been arrested in connection with a case involving serious offences, including allegations of rape, registered at Police Station Pathrota in Narmadapuram district.

The single judge bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia was confronted with a peculiar situation where the applicant relied on a report prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Police (SDO(P), Itarsi), which purportedly concluded that the allegations made by the prosecutrix did not appear to be correct. The report had been initiated on the basis of a complaint submitted by the applicant’s father to the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram. This prompted the Court to examine whether such a parallel enquiry could be relied upon during an ongoing investigation.

At the outset, the Court questioned the very legality of conducting such an enquiry alongside a police investigation. Referring to its earlier decision in Preetam Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated that a parallel enquiry under Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable during the pendency of investigation. This position, the Court noted, has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Surendra Singh Gaur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where it was categorically held that “neither Section 36 of the Code nor the circulars… provide for holding an independent and parallel inquiry along with the investigation.”

Building on this settled legal position, the High Court expressed serious concern over the conduct of the police authorities in the present case. It observed that despite the clear legal prohibition, the Superintendent of Police directed a parallel enquiry, which was then carried out by the SDO(P), Itarsi. The Court found this to be a clear instance of disregard for established legal principles.

More troubling, according to the Court, was the manner in which the enquiry report was prepared. It noted that the SDO(P) had reached conclusions about the falsity of the prosecutrix’s allegations without even recording her statement. The Court remarked that “how SDO(P) can criticize a person behind her back” without affording her an opportunity to be heard. This, the Court underscored, violated basic principles of fairness and natural justice.

The Court did not mince words in expressing its disapproval, observing that it was “really shocking” that such a report was prepared in favour of the applicant in a case involving serious allegations. It further emphasized that not only was the procedure itself impermissible, but the manner in which it was conducted demonstrated a lack of understanding of fundamental legal requirements on the part of the concerned officer.

In a significant direction, the Court categorically held that the report of the parallel enquiry “shall never be taken into consideration by the Trial Court for any purposes.” This effectively rendered the report legally irrelevant, reinforcing the principle that investigations must proceed strictly in accordance with the procedure established by law.

At this stage, counsel for the applicant sought permission to withdraw the bail application, which the Court allowed. The application was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

However, the Court went a step further by directing that a copy of its order be sent to the Director General of Police. The purpose, it stated, was to apprise the senior-most police authority in the state about “the working of Police in District Narmadapuram and the manner in which serious offences like rape are being dealt with.” This direction indicates the Court’s broader concern about systemic issues in the handling of criminal investigations.

Case Title: Arpit Chourey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: April 22, 2026

Bench: Justice G. S. Ahluwalia