1993 Supreme(All) 390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. NARAYANA KURUP, KUNDAN SINGH
NATHO MAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 17017 Of 1993
Decided On : 08/23/1993

The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigation into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds.

Headnote:

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT - SECTION 3/7 - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF FIR - STAY OF ARREST - PRINCIPLES: 1. The power of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs is limited by the provisions for the writs and the Court cannot draft laws and enforce them in the face of already existing laws even if there be certain omissions in the existing laws of procedure. 2. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 32 or of a High Court under Art. 226 to enforce a fundamental right arises where a fundamental right of the petitioner has been affected by an Act or order in one of the following cases: a) Where the action has been taken under a Statute which is ultra vires the Constitution. b) Where the Statute is intra vires but the action taken is without jurisdiction. c) Where action taken is procedurally ultra vires. d) Where the authority, being under an obligation to act judicially passes an order which is violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The law presumes that public authorities function properly and bona fide with due regard to the public interest, a court must be circumspect in granting interim orders, causing administrative burdens and inconvenience. Prudence, discretion and circumspection are needed. 4. The inherent power of a High Court to stay proceedings has been respectively debated in many English Courts and a majority of the judgments stressed that the power of staying proceedings should be reserved only for exceptional cases. 5. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigation into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds as aforementioned. 6. The power of the police to investigate into a report which discloses the commission of cognizable offence is unfettered and cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 7. A writ of habeas corpus could not be granted when the finding was that the person was committed to Jail custody by the competent order of a competent court, which prima facie was neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. 8. A writ of mandamus is issued to do an act in accordance with the law. In order to have a cause of action for mandamus, there has to be some order or statutory duty which may be considered to be not in accordance with the law or demurable or pendency of an action before a public authority where he may not be disposing it of where an inaction or omission may be demurable. 9. There can be no mandamus to control exercise of discretion. 10. The writ of certiorari issues out of a superior court and is directed to the Judge or other officer or an inferior court of record. It may be extended in certain cases to the functions of other Tribunals but in no case can it cover the investigation and actions of a police officer. An error of jurisdiction in at least in quasi-judicial function is the first requirement and, therefore, it may not be available in the matter or investigation by the police. 11. The disputed questions of fact are not to be gone into in writ petitions.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a license holder under the Essential Commodities Act, challenged the FIR against him under Section 3/7 of the Act for a discrepancy in the rate board and shortage of one bag of mustard oil seeds. The investigation ended in a final report, but the Senior Prosecuting Officer disagreed, leading to the likelihood of petitioner's arrest.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Court held that the power of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs is limited by the provisions for the writs and the Court cannot draft laws and enforce them in the face of already existing laws even if there be certain omissions in the existing laws of procedure. 2. The Court observed that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigation into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds. 3. The Court further held that the power of the police to investigate into a report which discloses the commission of cognizable offence is unfettered and cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The Court also observed that a writ of habeas corpus could not be granted when the finding was that the person was committed to Jail custody by the competent order of a competent court, which prima facie was neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. 5. The Court held that a writ of mandamus is issued to do an act in accordance with the law and there has to be some order or statutory duty which may be considered to be not in accordance with the law or demurable or pendency of an action before a public authority where he may not be disposing it of where an inaction or omission may be demurable. 6. The Court further held that there can be no mandamus to control exercise of discretion. 7. The Court observed that the writ of certiorari issues out of a superior court and is directed to the Judge or other officer or an inferior court of record. It may be extended in certain cases to the functions of other Tribunals but in no case can it cover the investigation and actions of a police officer. An error of jurisdiction in at least in quasi-judicial function is the first requirement and, therefore, it may not be available in the matter or investigation by the police. 8. The Court also held that the disputed questions of fact are not to be gone into in writ petitions.

Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the power to quash an FIR under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the investigation of an offence is exclusively reserved for the police officers? 3. Whether the power of the police to investigate into a report which discloses the commission of cognizable offence is unfettered? 4. Whether a writ of habeas corpus can be granted when the finding is that the person was committed to Jail custody by the competent order of a competent court? 5. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to control exercise of discretion? 6. Whether a writ of certiorari can be issued to cover the investigation and actions of a police officer?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs is limited by the provisions for the writs and the Court cannot draft laws and enforce them in the face of already existing laws even if there be certain omissions in the existing laws of procedure. 2. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigation into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code and the courts are not justified in obliterating the track of investigation when the investigating agencies are well within their legal bounds. 3. The power of the police to investigate into a report which discloses the commission of cognizable offence is unfettered and cannot be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. A writ of habeas corpus could not be granted when the finding was that the person was committed to Jail custody by the competent order of a competent court, which prima facie was neither without jurisdiction nor illegal. 5. A writ of mandamus is issued to do an act in accordance with the law and there has to be some order or statutory duty which may be considered to be not in accordance with the law or demurable or pendency of an action before a public authority where he may not be disposing it of where an inaction or omission may be demurable. 6. There can be no mandamus to control exercise of discretion. 7. The writ of certiorari issues out of a superior court and is directed to the Judge or other officer or an inferior court of record. It may be extended in certain cases to the functions of other Tribunals but in no case can it cover the investigation and actions of a police officer. An error of jurisdiction in at least in quasi-judicial function is the first requirement and, therefore, it may not be available in the matter or investigation by the police. 8. The disputed questions of fact are not to be gone into in writ petitions.

Final Decision: The Court granted an interim relief to the petitioner by staying his arrest till the disposal of the application for interim relief after due exchange of affidavits.