The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrutinizing charge sheets/final reports from the angle of territorial jurisdiction, in accordance with Sections 177 to 189 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to ensure that the investigating agency does not file the papers in a Court lacking jurisdiction.

Amar Dutt, J. - The petitioner-Karam Chand seeks to assail the order dead 10.3.2000, by which the Special Judge, Chandigarh, has accepted the cancellation report filed by the Central Bureau of Investigations (hereinafter referred to as "the C.B.I.") in a case investigated by it, on he request of the Government of Punjab, as incorporated in notification No. SSCS/97/40 dated 7th February, 1997 to this effect.

2. According to the above notification, the Governor of Punjab had accorded his consent to the extension of the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Punjab for the "investigation of the matter concerning transfer of about 15 Acres of government land in Mohali by the Sports Department to the Punjab Cricket Association as also for other matters connected with the utilisation of the land and the funds granted by the Government to the Punjab Cricket Association to see whether any culpable offences, attempts, abetments and misuse of officials position, have been made for private benefit." This investigation was ordered despite the fact that on the land so transferred, the Cricket Stadium had already been built, whose ambience matched that of any Stadium in the World, probably on the analogy that the end product did not justify the means adopted for setting up the same. The C.B.I. was also required to enquire into whether any culpable offences are made out under the existing laws against concerned officers in the Department of Sports, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Industries, during the period extending from 1991 to 1996. The copy of the notification dated 7.2.1997 issued by the Chief Secretary and Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Department Vigilance was forwarded to the Director, C.B.I. by D.O. No. SSCS-97/41 of the same date. On 25th February, 1997, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), New Delhi, issued a notification in pursuance of powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 extending the powers and the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, Delhi, for whole of the Punjab for investigation into the above case. The formal FIR was registered by the CBI, Chandigarh on the basis of the above notification on 25.2.1997 and about three years elapsed before the investigations were finalised and a report submitted on 10.2.2000. Soon after the initiation of the investigation, there was a change of the government whereupon an effort was made to withdraw the notification which was successfully contested by the C.B.I. It is probably the delay in the finalisation of the report coupled with an apparent effort to mellow down the gravity of the misdemeanour that seems to have encouraged the filing of the present petition.

3. Ordinarily, this Court would be reluctant to scrutinize judicial orders passed by Criminal Courts functioning within its jurisdiction at the behest of busy bodies, whose only interest apparently appears to be a desire to project themselves as watch dogs of society, who try to ensure that nothing goes wrong therein. As a matter of fact it is this diffidence which was sought to be worked upon by the respondents for urging that this Court should avoid scrutinizing the validity of the order as such a course may encourage frivolous litigants like the petitioner to poke their nose into the affairs which are of no concern of theirs. According to them, the Special Judge, Chandigarh having applied his all judicial acumen to scrutinise the request of the C.B.I. to cancel the F.I.R., this Court should refrain from re-evaluating the material collected by the Investigating Agency for the purpose of finding out whether, in fact, the recommendations made by the Investigating Agency are warranted by the records.

4. In order