Back
2000 Supreme(All) 971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. GUPTA, U. S. TRIPATHI
HARKISHAN - Appellant
Versus
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BULANDSHAHR - Respondents
CRI. M. W. P. 4383 Of 2000
Decided On : 07/27/2000
M.K.GUPTA
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court should not interfere with the statutory rights of the police to investigate a cognizable offence, and the court's function begins when a charge-sheet is filed and not before it.
Headnote:
Investigation - Cognizable Offence - Statutory Rights of Police - Court's Function
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought direction to the Investigating Officer not to arrest them as they were not named in the F. I. R. and their complicity had been stated by a co-accused. The petitioners argued that the Investigating Officer should not arrest them until any other evidence is collected against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it is well settled law that the court should not interfere during investigation or assume authority over the powers of the Investigating Officer. The court emphasized that the statutory rights of the police under Sections 154 and 156 of the Cr. P. C. to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime should not be interfered with by the court. The court stated that the function of the court begins when a charge-sheet is filed and not before it, and there was no indication that the Investigating Officer was not functioning in an honest manner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should intervene with the statutory rights of the police to investigate a cognizable offence when the petitioners were not named in the F. I. R. and their complicity was stated by a co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the complementary functions of the police and the judiciary, stating that the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own functions, subject to the right of the court to interfere in an appropriate case.
Final Decision: The court found no merits in the writ petition and dismissed the same, upholding the statutory rights of the police to investigate a cognizable offence.
( 2 ) F. I. R. in question, which we have perused, discloses commission of cognizable offence. In such a situation police has every authority to make investigation for finding out real offenders. It is submitted by the petitioners counsel that the petitioners are not named in the F. I. R. and their complicity has been stated before the police by co-accused Naresh-nephew of the petitioners when he was arrested by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that until any other piece of evidence is collected against the petitioners the Investigating Officer should be directed not to arrest them. It is well settled law that Court should not interfere during investigation nor should assume authority on the powers of the Investigating Officer. A statutory right has been conferred on the police under Sections 154 and 156, Cr. P. C. to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime. It would be an unfortunate result if it has to be held that Courts should intervene with those statutory rights. The functions of the police and the judiciary are complimentary and not over lapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own functions, always of course subject to the right of the Court to interfere in an appropriate case. In a case where cognizable offence is disclosed the Courts function begins when a charge-sheet is filed and not before it. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Investigating Officer is not functioning in an honest manner.
( 3 ) WE, thus find no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.
.
