SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 451

S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY
Divine Retreat Centre - PETITIONER
Vs
State of Kerala & Ors. - RESPONDENTS
Appeal (crl.) 472 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2234 of 2007)
Decided on : 11/03/2008

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent power - High Court has no unlimited arbitrary jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code-The power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution-There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure ends of justice. (Para 22)

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156 and 482 - Interference with the investigation in exercise of inherent jurisdiction-Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code- The H. C. under its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basic and more particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a named Judge-even in cases where appropriate direction can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution, the H.C. cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be concluded but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code. (Paras 33 to 35)

       Constitution of India - Article 226 r/w Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156, 190 and 200 - Direction to Police for investigation-Where no action is taken by the police on the information given to them, informant's remedy lies u/ss. 190, 200 Cr.P.C., but a writ petition in such a case is not to be entertained - The High Court in exercise of its whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a special Investigation Team on the strength of anonymous petitions. (Paras 36, 43 and 46)

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154, 155 and 156 r/w Constitution of India-Article 21 - Right of hearing to an accused at the stage of investigation-Investigation directed by the High Court on the basis of an anonymous petition-No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be affected by such order- The impugned order of the H. C. directing enquiry and investigation into allegations in respect of which not even any complaint/information has been lodged with the police is violative of the principles of natural justice. (Para 44)

       Constitution of India - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation on the basis of an anonymous petition addressed to a Judge-Public Interest Litigant must disclose his identity so as to enable the Court to decide that the informant is not a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern-the suo motu action initiated cannot be treated as the one in Public Interest Litigation-the individual Judges ought not to entertain communications and letters personally addressed to them and initiate action on the judicial side based on such communication so as to avoid embarrassment-All communications and petitions invoking the court's jurisdiction must be addressed to the entire court. (Paras 55, 56 and 61)

       (1970)1 SCC 653, (1980)1 SCC 554, (2003)2 SCC 649, (1963)2 SCR 52, (1972) 1 SCC 452, (1973)3 SCC 753, (1977)4 SCC 451, (1977)2 SCC 699, (2007)7 SCC 188, (2006)7 SCC 296, (2004)7 SCC 768, (1996)11 SCC 582, (2002)5 SCC 521, (1999)6 SCC 667, 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 260, (1998)5 SCC 749, (1980)3 SCC 488, (1983)2 SCC 308, (1982)2 SCC 583, (1995)3 SCC 743, AIR 1982 SC 149, AIR 1993 SC 892, (2005) 1 SCC 590, (1985) 1 SCC 317, (1998)1 SCC 1, (1984)3 SCC 161 - Referred to.

JUDGMENT:

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. What is the scope, content and ambit of the inherent power conferred on the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code ) is the central question that falls for our consideration in this appeal.

3. The relevant facts, giving rise to this appeal, have been set out in the impugned judgment of the High Court but they have to be recapitulated in order to enable us to give our reasons for the findings which we will be arriving at on the interpretation.

4. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed by Divine Retreat Centre assailing the judgment and order dated 10.3.2006 of the High Court of Kerala rendered in Criminal M.C. No. 405 of 2006, directing investigation of Crime No. 381 of 2005 of Koratty Police Station to be taken away from the Investigating Officer and entrusting the same to a Special Investigation Team headed by Vinson M. Paul, I.P.S. Inspector General of Police, presently working as Managing Director of Kerala Police Housing Construction Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram. The High Court also directed the same authority to investigate/inquire into various other allegations leveled in an anonymous petition filed against Divine Retreat Centre. The impugned judgment and order arises out of the proceedings suo motu initiated by the Court on the basis of anonymous petition addressed to Justice Padmanabhan Nair.

5. The tell-tale facts disclosed from the record may have to be noted in some detail. One Mini Varghese, a female remand prisoner, sent a petition to the District Judge, Kozhikode, inter alia, alleging that while she was taking shelter in Divine Retreat Centre she had been subjected to molestation and exploitation and became pregnant from Father Jose Thadathil (later identified as Father Mathew Thadathil). When she came out of Centre to attend her sister s marriage she was implicated in a false theft case and lodged in the jail.

6. The District Judge having received the petition on 28.7.2005 forwarded the same to the concerned Magistrate on 9.8.2005 to do the needful. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koyilandi recorded the statement of the victim on 11.8.2005 and thereafter the matter was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chalakuddy. The learned Magistrate having received the records ordered investigation. A case was registered in Crime No. 381 of 2005 under Section 376(g) I.P.C. at Koratty Police Station.

7. For whatever reasons, the District Judge sent a copy of the petition received by him to the Registrar of Kerala High Court which was placed before Thankappan, J. who in turn directed complaint to be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur to cause an inquiry and if necessary to register a case and report to the Court. The Superintendent of Police as well as the Circle Inspector of Police (Investigating Officer) submitted their reports duly informing the Registry that a case has already been registered and was being investigated.

8. On 28.10.2005, District Judge, Kozhikode, addressed a letter to the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala enclosing anonymous Petition dated 26.10.2005 received by him addressed to Justice K. Padmanabhan Nair. The Petition was accompanied by photocopies of certain press reports and three Video C.Ds. In his covering letter, the District Judge referred to the facts leading to the registration of Crime No. 381 of 2005 on the file of Koratty Police Station on 31.8.2005 under Section 376(g) I.P.C. and further stated:

In the meantime, Smt. Mini Varghese delivered. The Local Police, while arresting her in connection with a theft case had seized a mobile phone from her. The police produced that mobile phone in the J.F.M.C., Koyilandy. That mobile phone was forwarded










































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top