Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 753
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. DEVADASS, J.
M.V. Mahesh Kumar
Versus
T. Saravanan, The Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Krishnagiri District
Cont. P. No. 541 of 2014
Decided on : 01-04-2014
For the Petitioner:P.M. Duraiswamy, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Shanmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor.
The court clarified the procedure for investigation of complaints, the inherent power of High Courts under section 482 Cr.P.C., and the limited role of the court in determining the nature of a complaint.
Headnote:
Contempt of Courts Act - Disobedience of Court Order - Sec. 11 - O.S.No.27 of 2007 - Forgery - Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. - Investigation Procedure - Sec. 156 and 157 Cr.P.C. - Inherent Power of High Courts - Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. - Preliminary Enquiry - Sec. 154 Cr.P.C. - Civil Matter - Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. - Sec. 204 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the Inspector of Police for disobeying the court's order to register a case based on his complaint and investigate a forgery matter related to an immovable property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order directed the investigation officer to enquire the matter and register a case if a cognizable offence is found, and the officer's report revealed it to be a civil matter, leaving the complainant to pursue other legal remedies.
Issues: Disobedience of court order, investigation procedure, inherent power of High Courts, preliminary enquiry, and the nature of the matter as a civil dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the role of the investigation officer in enquiring into a complaint, the limited role of the court in such matters, and the available legal remedies for the complainant.
Final Decision: The petition was closed as the court did not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as against the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Krishnagiri for disobeying this court's order, dated 7.10.2013.
2. Petitioner filed the petition in Crl.O.P.No.24604 of 2013 under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent to register a case based on his complaint, dated 5.7.2013 and investigate.
3. On 7.10.2013 upon hearing both, this court passed the following order:
"Mahesh Kumar, the petitioner seeks direction to register a case based on his complaint dated 05.07.2013 and investigate the same in accordance with law.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Perused the allegations in the complaint and the averments in the petition.
4. There was sale agreement between the petitioner, namely, Mahesh Kumar and Susaiammal alongwith others with regard to an immovable property. With regard to that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.27 of 2007 for specific performance and the same was decreed in his favour.
5. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither in the written statement nor any part of the pleadings, there is nothing as to a prior sale agreement. Petitioner came to know that a document was brought into existence subsequently on practising forgery.
6. In the circumstances, the first respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, is directed to enquire the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.07.2013. If any cognizable offence is there, he shall register the case and proceed further in accordance with law.
7. With the above directions, the criminal original petition is disposed of."
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, actually no enquiry has been conducted. In such circumstances, Court can question as to whether the order of the court is complied with or not. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited NIAZ MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (1995 AIR (SC) 308).
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the order of this court, dated 7.10.2013, there was no positive direction to police to register a case. Actually, direction was to enquire the complaint and if there is any cognizable offence, then, register a case and proceed further in accordance with law.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Investigation Officer enquired the matter and found that it is only a civil matter. Accordingly, he has drawn up a report. A copy of the same also has been given to the complainant. There is no contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent. No violation of the court order much less deliberate or wilful disobedience to Court order.
7. As early as in 1945 in KING EMPEROR Vs. KHWAJA NAZIR AHAMED[AIR 1945 PC 18] Lord Justice Porter held that in India, the process of investigation is the province of police. Court can interfere if the police proceeds in a matter which does not disclose any cognizable offence or exercise power in breach of any statutory rules and regulations. This has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS [1992 L.W. (Crl.)257]. This also has been recently reiterated by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in LALITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS [2014(1)L.W.(Crl.)1].
8. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a procedure to investigate a criminal case has been chalked out in Sec.156 and 157 Cr.P.C. Investigation Officer gets the power of investigation under section 156 and 157 Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, namely, collection of evidence (See section 2(h), the investigation officer files his (final) report with his opinion thereon as to the commission of offence/s. (See section 173 Cr.P.C.) Thereafter, investigation comes to an end. Thereafter, the work of the Court begins, namely,
