Back
1984 Supreme(Cal) 293
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J.
DEEPCHAND AGARWALLA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
Matter No.1190 of 1983,
Decided On : 10 -8 -1984
The jurisdiction of the writ court in quashing an investigation is very restrictive and should not be extended to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
Headnote:
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - S.6A - INVESTIGATION - QUASHING - FIR DISCLOSING OFFENCE - JURISDICTION OF WRIT COURT - RESTRICTIVE - ENCROACHMENT OF CRIMINAL COURTS' JURISDICTION - WRIT COURT'S INTERVENTION ONLY IN CASES OF BLATANT FAILURE TO MAKE OUT PRIMA FACIE CASE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought to quash an investigation commenced under S.6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, based on an FIR alleging violation of the West Bengal Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Dealers Licensing) Order, 1978, and the Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oil (Storage Control) Order, 1977.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, even though cryptically, and that the mere omission to mention the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner did not nullify the FIR. The court further held that the jurisdiction of the writ court in quashing an investigation is very restrictive and should not be extended to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, even though cryptically? 2. Whether the mere omission to mention the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner nullified the FIR? 3. Whether the jurisdiction of the writ court in quashing an investigation is very restrictive and should not be extended to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the criminal courts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, even though cryptically, as it contained all necessary particulars regarding the violation of Cl.4 of the Central Control Order. 2. The court held that the mere omission to mention the nature of the business carried on by the petitioner did not nullify the FIR, as it was a matter of evidence to be determined at the trial. 3. The court held that the jurisdiction of the writ court in quashing an investigation is very restrictive and should not be extended to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, vacating all interim orders. However, the court recorded that the observations made in the judgment would not have any effect at the time of the trial.
1. This writ petition is for quashing of an investigation commenced under S.6A of the Essential Commodities Act on the basis of a First Information Report dt. 4th July, 1983 lodged by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Enforcement Directorate with the Officer-in-Charge, Burrabazar P. S. being P.S. Case No. 47 dt. 4th July, 1983 under S.7(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. It is a well settled principle of law that investigation of an offence is the field, exclusively reserved for the Executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the Judiciary. (See in this connection the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 326 : (1980 Cri LJ 98); State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanna).
3. Mr. Roy Chowdhury appearing for the petitioner, however, strongly relied on the later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar reported in AIR 1982 SC 949 : (1982 Cri LJ 819) and contended that in the event of nondisclosure of an offence in the First Information Report, the Writ Court would be within its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. In the said decision the Supreme Court observed that on a consideration of all the relevant materials the Court has to come to the conclusion as to whether an offence is disclosed or not and if on a consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, then Court would not interfere and would generally allow the investigation into the offences to be completed. If on the other hand, the Court, on the consideration of the relevant materials, is satisfied that no offence is disclosed, it will be the duty of the Court to interfere and stop the investigation to prevent uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to an individual.
4. In this context reference may also be made to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 : (1977 Cri LJ 1125) (State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami) wherein the Supreme Court observed that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The saving of High Court's inherent powers both in Civil and Criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is for a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. Needless however to say that the observation of the Supreme Court pertain to the exercise of the inherent power of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
5. In view of the aforesaid it is therefore necessary to consider the First Information Report for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the First Information Report lodged by the Sub-Inspector of the Enforcement Directorate does disclose an offence or not. The said First Information Report reads as follows:-
"I.S.I. S.N. Sarkar of E. B. lodged complaint to the effect that to-day (4/7/83) getting on an information the undersigned along with others officers of E.B. had been to M/s. Shyam Oil Industries at 9, Jagmohan Mullick Lane, Calcutta-7 and found that one Mohanlal Agarwala S/o Deepchand Agarwala, person-in-charge of the firm was present there. Mohanlal Agarwala produced the stock Register for pulses of the firm and the pulses licence on demand. On scrutinising of the Licence found that Deepchand Agarwala S/o Late Ratiram Agarwala and Others are the partners of the firm. But none of the partners are found present. On checking of the stock Register for pulses it was found that the firm has a stock of pulses at 157, Manicktolla Main Road, viz. Masurgota 1581 bags weighing 1581 quintals, Lalai gota 1660 bags weight 1660 qtls. and Khesari gota, 493 bag
