B. N. KATJU, A. C. J.

( 1 ) THESE are six applications under S. 482, Cr. P. C. praying that the first information report and the investigation on its basis be quashed end the opposite parties be directed to release the goods seized in favour of the applicants and the opposite parties be also directed not to arrest the applicants in pursuance of the first information report during the pendency of the application. The learned single Judge who heard these applications was of the view that the answers given by the Full Bench in the case of Prashant Gaur v. State of U. P. , 1988 All WC 828 to the questions referred to it with respect to the power of this Court to interfere with the investigation by the police did not appear to be in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Privy Council.

( 2 ) THE questions referred to the Full Bench in the case of Prashant Gaur v. State of U. P. , (1988 All WC 828) (supra) and the answers given with respect to them are as follows :- Question No. 1 : ANSWER : whether under S. 482 Cr. P. C. the High Court has inherent powers to interfere with the investigation by the Police? investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government. It is only in the rarest of rare cases, and that too, when it is found by the Court that the FIR and the investigation over a reasonable length of time, do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, or any offence of any kind, that the High Court may, under S. 482 of the Code interfere with the investigation. Question No. 2 : ANSWER : whether the High Court has powers to stay arrest during investigation? under S. 482 of the Code, the High Court, may not direct the stay of arrest during investigation except for a limited periodin case of such exceptional nature as is referred in the proceeding paragraphs. Question No. 3 : ANSWER : whether the decision reported in 1987 A. W. C. 404 lays down a correct proposition of law ? in view of our answer to question Nos. 1 and 2 question No. 3 does not require to be answered and hence returned unanswered.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge has accordingly referred the under mentioned questions for consideration by a larger Bench :-1. Are the answers to the questions Nos. 1 and 2 given by the Full Bench and the reasons for recording those answers, in accord with the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and the Privy Council ? 2. If the answer to the above question is not in the affirmative, then what is, the correct answer to the questions posed before the Full Bench ? 3. If no answer is thought necessary for any reason to the question No. 2, above, then correct legal position with reference to Puttan Singhs case may be laid down.

( 4 ) WE are required to answer these questions.

( 5 ) THE power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence without any interference by this Court in the exercise of its inherent powers has been considered in a number of decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court. In the case of Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 : (46 Cri LJ 413) it was held : -"just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their providence and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry. In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of are alleged cognizable crime without requiring an, authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document