Honble THOMAS, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Investigation and prosecution are two different facets in the administration of criminal justice. The role of Public Prosecutor is inside the Court, whereas investigation is outside the Court. Normally the role of Public Prospector commences after investigating agency presents the case in the Court on culmination of investigation. Its exception is that Public Prosecutor may have to deal with bail applications moved by the parties concerned at any stage. Involving the Public Prosecutor in investigation is unjudicious as well as pernicious in law. At any rate no investigating agency can be compelled to seek opinion of a Public Prosecutor under the orders of Court. Here is a case wherein the investigation officer concerned is directed by the High Court to take back the case from the Court whereas it was laid by him after completing the investigation and he is further directed to consult the Public Prosecutor and submit a fresh charge-sheet in tune with the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. Is such as course permissible in law ?

(3). A summary of the factual background of this case can be given thus :

A young bride -Selvi committed suicide on 29.12.97 by hanging herself on a ceiling fan in the bedroom of her nuptial home. Her husband was Arasu Elago. Their marriage was solemnised on 12.5.97. As the interval between their wedding and Selvis suicide was so short that an inquiry under Section 174(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code) was held. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate conducted the inquiry and submitted a report holding that ``it is conclusively proved that due to mental restlessness Selvi had committed suicide; no one is responsible and hence it is informed that her death is not due to dowry harassment.

(4). However, the police continued with the investigation and submitted a challan against Arasu Elango and his mother for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. Selvis father -the first respondent herein -was not satisfied with the aforesaid challan as Arasu Elangos sister (the present appellant) and her father was not arraigned as accused. Hence he moved the High Court of Madras under Section 482 of the Code. Learned Single Judge of the High Court who disposed of the above petition by an order dated 8.2.1999 has directed thus :

``Hence, it is ordered that papers shall be placed before the Public Prosecutor, Cuddalore District as it is without any further investigation and he shall render an impartial opinion on the matter and thereafter an amended charge-sheet shall be filed in the concerned Court.

(5). Appellants father (V. Ramalingam) on coming to know of the said order filed a petition before the learned Single Judge for recalling it on the main ground that neither he nor his daughter (appellant) was heard nor were they made parties in the proceedings. But the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the main premise that Section 362 of the Code contains a bar against recalling any order passed under the Code. Hence the appellant filed this appeal in challenge of both the orders.

(6). No endeavour was made before us to canvass against the correctness of the view adopted by the learned Single Judge that the order dated 8.2.1999 could not be recalled by him due to the bar contained in Section 362 of the Code. But even assuming it he so, that does not bar this Court in considering the legality of that order in this appeal.

(7). Mr. S. Sivasubramaniam, learned senior counsel, who argued for the appellant, contended that learned Single Judge had seriously erred in directing the investigating officer to submit the amended charge-sheet in accordance with the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. Shri V. Balachandran, learned counsel arguing for the first respondent, tried to support the impugned order on the premise that there is nothing objectionable for the investigation officer to consult the Public Prosecutor before laying a report under Section 163(2) of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document