Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Sections 154(3), 162, 172, 173(8), 156(3), 169, 173 and 190 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 226, 227 and 142 — To File Progress and Action Taken Report of Investigation — Direction by High Court to police—Jurisdiction and propriety of — Finding as to — The dispute to the question as to whether the Courts can monitor investigation has narrowed down — There is little doubt left that normally investigation of offences is the function of the investigating agency and the Courts donot ordinarily interfere with the same — But at the same time the High Court is vested with such powers necessitating such monitoring by Courts — In the present matter it can not be denied that the progress of investigation has been tardy and slow — It was for this reason that investigation had to be handed over to A.C. Police ‘C’ Division Ahmedabad with a further direction to him to file a progress report of investigation — In view of the factual circumstances the Court adopted the procedure for keeping watch over investigation in order to prevent miscarriage of justice — Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the orders of High Court.

       Held :

       The area of dispute ultimately narrows down to the question as to whether the Courts can monitor investigations in respect of offences alleged to have been committed when the investigation had already been commenced by the investigating agency. There is little doubt that normally investigation of offences is the function of the investigating agencies and the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the same. But, at the same time the High Court is vested with such powers, though the same are invoked only in cases where extraordinary facts are involved, necessitating such monitoring by the Courts. [Para 31]

       In the circumstances, Court is only required to see whether such an extraordinary fact situation exists in this case which warranted such a course of action to be adopted by the High Court. [Para 32]

       It cannot be denied that the progress of the investigation has been tardy and slow. It is in such circumstances that the investigation had to be handed over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, ‘C’ Division, Ahmedabad City, with a further direction upon the said Assistant Commissioner of Police to file a progress report of the investigation undertaken in respect of the First Information Report dated 24th December, 2008.

        [Para 33]

       Having regard to the factual circumstances in which the incident had occurred, the Court adopted the procedure for keeping a watch over the investigation in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. [Para 34

       In cases where it has been brought to the notice of the Courts that investigation into an offence was not being carried on in the manner in which it should have been carried on, directions have been given by the Courts to the investigating agencies to conduct the investigation according to certain guidelines, as otherwise the very purpose of the investigation could become fruitless. The decisions cited by Mr. Nariman do not militate against the concept of the Court’s power, where necessary, to direct the authorities to conduct themselves in a particular way. Once it is proved that there are no other circumstances except those which were projected, the need for such monitoring diminished. However, there is nothing in the decisions cited by Mr. Nariman to even remotely suggest that if the investigation was being stalled, for whatever reason, the Courts were powerless to pass appropriate orders to ensure that the investigation was proceeded with and justice was done to the parties. [Para 35]

       Law Laid Down :

       The Courts can monitor investigation in respect of offences where in investigation has already been commenced by Investigating Agency.

       Case Law Analysis :

       Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. vs. ‘Niyamavedi’ represented by its member K. Nandini, Advocate & Ors., 1995 (3) SCC 601 [Para 15];; M.C. Abraham & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2003 (2) SCC 649 [Para 17].—Distinguished

       S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors., 1970 (1) SCC 653 [Para 22];; Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration & Anr., 1988 (Supp.) SCC 482 [Para 23];; State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Ranchi Zila Samta Party & Anr., 1996 (3) SCC 682 [Para 24];; Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., 1998 (1) SCC 226 [Para 25];; State of W.B. & Ors. vs. Nuruddin Mallick & Ors., 1998 (8) SCC 43 [Para 26];; Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2009 (1) SCC 441 [Para 26];; Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 (1) SCC 397 [Para 26]];; Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Anr. vs. K.S. Jagannathan & Anr., 1986 (2) SCC 679 [Para 26].—Relied on