Back
2008(6) Supreme 589
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
State Rep. By D.S.P., S.B.C.I.D., Chennai — Appellant
versus
K.V. Rajendran & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5238 of 2004)
Decided on : 02-09-08
Facts of the Case :
Issue in consideration in present appeal was whether in the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an order disposing of a criminal petition, refusing to grant any relief, could be modified and, thereafter, an investigation, which was with the State Police authorities could be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Findings of the Court :
Section 362 of Code prohibits reopening of a final order except in the cases of clerical or arithmetical errors. Section 362 of Code held inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of case as there was no clerical or arithmetical error in the order .In view of expressed prohibition in Code itself in form of Section 362, exercise of power under Section 482 of Code cannot be exercised to reopen or alter an order disposing of a petition decided on merits. Instantly High Court, in original final order, disposing of the petition under Section 482 of Code had specifically given reasons for rejecting prayer for handing over investigation to CBI authorities. After the final order was passed rejecting prayer of respondent to hand over the investigation to the CBI authorities, by which, the criminal petition filed under Section 482 was practically rejected, it was not open to High Court to pass a fresh order in the disposed of petition or even in the pending petition of the DSP (SB CID) Nagapattinam, directing investigation to be made by CBI authorities. That apart, the respondents did not file any independent application for transferring the investigation from the State Police authorities to the CBI authorities on certain events which had occurred after the final order was passed by the High Court disposing of the earlier criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code. Hence High Court was not justified in handing over investigation of case from State Police authorities to CBI authorities.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgment
Tarun Chatterjee, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.The only question that needs to be decided in this appeal is whether in the exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “ the Code”), an Order disposing of a criminal petition, refusing to grant any relief, could be modified and, thereafter, an investigation, which was with the State Police authorities could be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, “the CBI”).
3.A criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the respondents for transfer of the investigation which had been initiated for an offence under Sections 177, 186 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code to the CBI. In the year 1998, the said criminal petition was disposed of by the High Court refusing to transfer the investigation to CBI. By the said Order the High Court, while disposing of the said criminal petition, held that it was not necessary to hand over the investigation to CBI in the facts and circumstances of the case and the SBCID was directed to continue with the investigation. After more than 3 = years of the final Order refusing to transfer the investigation to CBI, an Interlocutory Application was filed in the disposed of criminal petition by the complainant/respondents but this time, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court transferred the investigation to the CBI and directed the State Police to hand over the records to CBI forthwith. It is this Order, by which the investigation was transferred to CBI, is in appeal before us, which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of learned counsel for the parties.
4.In our view, the High Court fell in error in reopening the issue which was finally decided and refused earlier in the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code on a petition which was filed in a disposed of petition at the instance of the DSP [SB CID]. Before we take up this question for our decision, it would be appropriate to narrate the facts of this case leading to the filing of this appeal in a nutshell :-
5.On 26th of August, 1998 the Revenue Divisional Officer (in short ‘the RDO’) Mayiladuthurai received a phone call regarding smuggling of sandalwood and teak wood logs. The RDO immediately made enquiries and discovered that the call was a false alarm. During the enquiry it also came to light that the caller was one K.V. Rajendran son of Vardarajan (the Respondent herein). He had impersonated as a reporter of the Indian Express and made a hoax call to the officer. On 27th of August, 1998 at 01.00 hrs, the RDO appeared before the Superintendent of Police Nagapattinam and made a complaint against the Respondent. He produced a statement given by the Respondent wherein he had admitted the allegations made against him. The Respondent was identified as a Lecturer in Government Presidency College, Madras. On the personal complaint of the RDO, a case was registered in Porayiar police Station against the Respondent under Sections 177, 186 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent was arrested and in the morning of 27th of August 1998, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Mayiladuthurai and remanded to judicial custody. On the next day, the respondent was granted bail and was released from custody. On 2nd of September, 1998, the respondent herein alleged to have given a complaint against the RDO and other officers for having tortured him and for having committed other illegal acts between 26th of August 1998 and 28th August, 1998.
6.On 06th of September, 1998, the respondent filed a petition before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu. On this complaint, the District Collector, Nagapattinam, Ordered an elaborate enquiry and on the basis of such an Order, a report was submitted to him. On 05th of October, 1998, the District Revenue Officer (DRO) and the Additional District Magistrate submitted the report of their enquiry to the District Collector. According to this repo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
