2011 Supreme(SC) 239

2011 (2) Supreme 249
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Ashok Kumar Todi — Appellant(s)
versus
Kishwar Jahan & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5005 of 2010)
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 2204-2209 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 29951-29956 of 2010)
and
Criminal Appeal Nos. 603-608 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7008-7013 of 2010)
Decided on : 1-3-2011

IMPORTANT POINTS
High Court’s direction for CBI investigation even without consulting the concerned State government would be valid in law.
Administration / police authorities duty bound to protect inter-caste/ inter-religion couple.
There cannot be two parallel investigations, one by CBI and the other by State CID.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 226 – A direction by the High Court to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence without the consent of concerned State shall neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power – It shall be valid in law – Such extraordinary power should however be exercised sparingly. (Para 14)

        (2010) 3 SCC 571 – Relied upon

        (b) Constitution of India – Article – Freedom to marry – Major men and women are free to marry irrespective of their caste or religion – Administration / police authorities duty bound to see that such couple is not harassed – Authorities also duty bound to take any person to task by instituting criminal proceeding who threatens such couple. (Para 17)

        (2006) 5 SCC 475 – Relied upon

        (c) Administration of Justice – Unauthorised interference by Police – Two major persons of different religions married on their own will – Marriage was duly registered – Police have no right to interfere in their conjugal affairs – Rather police duty bound to protect the couple from others trying to interfere in their conjugal life. (Para 18)

        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 174 and 175 – High Court directing CBI to take up investigation – Merely because of lack of express direction to CID to hand over papers to CBI, it cannot be said that CID was authorised to conduct parallel investigation – There cannot be two parallel investigations, one by CBI and the other by State CID. (Para 21)

        (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 2(h) – Investigation – Scope, ambit and procedure discussed. (Para 23)

        AIR 1955 SC 196; AIR 1959 SC 707; (2000) 8 SCC 323 – Relied upon

        (f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173(2) – Provisions of Chapter XII apply to CBI as well. (Para 24)

        (2001) 7 SCC 536 – Relied upon

        (g) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Sections 154, 174 and 175 – Once FIR was registered and investigation conducted on that basis and charge sheet submitted, High Court erred in directing fresh FIR and investigation after three years. (Para 26)

        (h) Judicial Review – Police officers exceeded their jurisdiction by interfering in the conjugal affairs of the couple even without formal complaint against them – Such officers should be departmentally proceeded against. (Para 28)

       Facts of the case:

        1. One Rizwanur Rahman -the deceased, a Computer Graphics Engineer fell in love with Priyanka Todi, daughter of Ashok Kumar Todi. On 18.08.2007, Rizwanur Rahman married Priyanka Todi under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. On 31.08.2007, Priyanka Todi left her father’s house and started living in her husband’s home. The couple informed the police officers from Police Commissioner to the Officers-in-charge of the concerned police stations about their marriage along with a copy of the Marriage Registration Certificate. Simultaneously, Priyanka Todi informed her father about her marriage with the deceased and also of the fact of her residing with her husband in her in-law’s house.

        2. Priyanka’s father built pressure on her and her in-laws through police intervention and succeeded in forcing her to return to her parental home. However, the police did so on the understanding that Priyanka will return to her in-law’s house after a week.

        3. On 21.09.2007, the dead body of Rizwanur Rahman was found on the railway tracks with injuries and the head smashed. Rukbanur Rahman-the brother of the deceased, lodged a written complaint with the Police suspecting the hands of Ashok Kumar Todi behind the unnatural death of his brother and the same was registered.

        4. On the writ petition by the mother and brother of the deceased the High Court, directed the CBI to start investigation afresh by treating the complaint filed by the brother of the deceased as F.I.R. and to register a case of murder and further directed to complete the investigation preferably within a period of four months from the date of the order.

       Finding of the Court:

        There was no fault in the learned Single Judge of the High Court in directing the CBI to take up investigation.

        Impugned order of the Division Bench cannot be sustained.