Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009(4) Crimes 59 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and B. Su dershan Reddy, JJ.
D. Venkatasubramniam & Ors. — Appellants
versus
M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1766 of 2009
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3271 of 2007)
Decided on 14-09-2009

Advocates Appeared:
Uday U. Lalit, A.T.M Rangaramanujam, Sr. Advs., N.G.Govindarajalu, Avishek Kumar Lal, S. Mahendran, P.V. Yogeswaran, R. N. Upadya, K. V. Mohan, S. Thananjayan, Advs.,

IMPORTANT POINT
It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Power of High Court to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence – Validity – The power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by High Court either suo motu or on an application to secure the ends of justice – High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court – There is no other ground on which the High Court may exercise its inherent power – Instantly High Court did not record any reasons whatsoever why and for what reasons, matter required its interference – High Court is not expected to make any casual observations without having any regard to the possible consequences that may ensue from such observations – Observations coming from the higher Courts may have their own effect of influencing the course of events and process of law – For that reason, no uncalled for observations are to be made while disposing of the matters and that too without hearing the persons likely to be affected.(Para 24)
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Power of High Court to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence –Validity- Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties wherein it was agreed upon by the respondent that he would facilitate the sale of about 600 acres of land in favour of IVR for a valuable consideration of Rs.28 lakhs per acre – Termination of MOU by IVR- Thereafter, IVR entering into two MOUs with others – Registration of FIR by respondent against appellants alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code – The police, having registered the case against the appellants commenced its investigation – Even while the investigation was in progress, for some inexplicable reasons, respondent moved High Court under Section 482 of the Code, seeking directions to police to seize an amount of Rs.2,28,00,000/- from appellants claiming that he was entitled for an amount of Rs.1,28,00,000/- for facilitating the registration of 64 acres of land under the MOU which amount is alleged to have been withheld by appellants together with a sum of Rs.1 crore which was stated to have been paid by him to appellants – High Court, disposed of the same observing that “it was obligatory on the part of respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents, filing of charge sheet – The Court directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months –Appeals – It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed – High Court in the instant case interfered with the investigation of crime which was within the exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police to investigate the case from a particular angle –. It is not necessary that every investigation should result in arrest, seizure of the property and ultimately in filing of the charge sheet – High Court without realizing consequences, issued directions in a casual and mechanical manner without hearing the appellants –The impugned order held a nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score – Appeals allowed. (Paras 15, 16, 20 to 27)
       Facts of the Case :
       Issue in consideration in present case was regarding validity of power of High Court to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence.
       Findings of the Court :
       It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed. High Court in the instant case interfered with the investigation of crime which was within the exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police to investigate the case from a particular angle. It is not necessary that every investigation should result in arrest, seizure of the property and ultimately in filing of the charge sheet. High Court without realizing consequences, issued directions in a casual and mechanical manner without hearing the appellants. The impugned order held a nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.

1. A short question that arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether it is open to the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence? If such a power is available with the Court, what are the parameters for its interference?

2. It is well settled and this Court time and again, reiterated that the police authorities have the statutory right and duty to investigate into a cognizable offence under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). This Court, on more than one occasion, decried uncalled for interference by the Courts into domain of investigation of crimes by police in discharge of their statutory functions. The principle has been succinctly stated way back in Emperor V. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad1 and the same has been repeatedly quoted with respect and approval. The Privy Council observed that “just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly, acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the AIR 1945 PC 18 judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry”.

3. The Privy Council further observed:

“In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491, Criminal P.C. to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court’s functions begin when a charge is preferred before it and not until then. It has sometimes been thought that Section 561A has given increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possess shall be preserved and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code, and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act.” (emphasis supplied)

4. In State of West Bengal V. S. N. Basak,2 (1963) 2 SCR 52 a Division Bench of three Judges of this Court, while referring to the observations of the Privy Council referred to hereinabove, observed: “With this interpretation, which has been put on the statutory duties and powers of the police and of the powers of the Court, we are in accord.” and it was further held:

“The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in Chapter XIV of the Code. Section 154 which is in that Chapter deals with information in cognizable offences and Section 156 with investigation into such offences and under these sections the police has the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence ...and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of power under Section 439 or under the inherent power of the court under Section 561A of Criminal Procedure Code”. This Court, having found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINT It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed.

Cases Referred (9)

IMPORTANT POINT
It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed.