//
you're reading...
legal issues

“The Investigating Officer, who is a D.S.P. in rank, will not be in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully, as senior functionaries of the State in the Police Department and political leaders are being named. By this we are not casting any doubts on the investigating team, but it 20 seems that political and administrative compulsions are making it difficult for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the truth. Apart from revolving around a few persons who have been named in the status report, nothing worthwhile is coming out regarding the interrogation of the police officers, political leaders and others. The investigation seems to have slowed down because of political considerations. Not less than eight police officials, political leaders, Advocates, Municipal Councilors and number of persons from the general public have been named in the status report. We feel that justice would not be done to the case, if it stays in the hands of the Punjab Police. Having said this, we want to make one thing very clear that the team comprising of Shri Ishwar Chander, D.I.G, Shri L.K. Yadav, S.S.P. Moga and Shri Bhupinder Singh, D.S.P. have done a commendable job in unearthing the scam. We feel it a fit case to be handed over to the C.B.I.”

Maharaja Ranjit Singh's throne, about 1820-183...

Image via Wikipedia

 Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 792 OF 2008

State of Punjab ...... Petitioner 

 Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation

& Ors. ...... Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

 This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution has 

been filed by the State of Punjab praying for special leave to 

appeal against the order dated 11.12.2007 of the High 

Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 

51620 of 2007 (for short "the impugned order").

2. The facts very briefly are that on 18.04.2007 

respondent no.3 lodged FIR No. 82 at Police Station City-I, 

Moga against Simran Kaur @ Indu and her husband Ajay 

Kumar alleging offences under Sections 366, 376, 406, 420, 

 2

506, 344 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 

1860 (for short `the IPC'). Pursuant to the FIR, Simran Kaur 

and Ajay Kumar were arrested on 19.04.2007, but Ajay 

Kumar managed to escape from the custody of police and 

FIR No. 83, Police Station City-I, Moga dated 19.04.2007 

under Section 224 of the IPC was registered against him. In 

course of investigation of the case, respondent no.3 made a 

statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code of 

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Cr.P.C.') on 

23.04.2007 naming 14 other persons who had sex with her 

against her will and some of these persons were arrested by 

Sub-Inspector Raman Kumar. The statement of respondent 

no.3 was recorded on 25.04.2007 under Section 164 of the 

Cr.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. On 

08.05.2007, the investigation of the case was entrusted to 

Inspector Amarjit Singh, S.H.O. PS City-I, Moga. Some of 

the persons named by respondent no.3 in her statements 

were found to be innocent and were released. After 

completing the investigation, Inspector Amarjit Singh 

submitted a charge sheet on 01.06.2007 in Court under 

Section 173 of the Cr.P.C naming Simran Kaur @ Indu, Ajay 

 3

Kumar, Vimal Kumar, Subhash Chander, Ramesh Kumar, 

Randhir Singh, Iqbal Singh, Bharat Bhushan and Inderjit 

Singh as accused persons. 

3. On 04.06.2007 FIR No. 160 was registered under 

Sections 342, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC 

at PS Baghapuran against several accused persons. One of 

the accused persons Ranjit Singh, however, made a 

complaint to the Additional Director General of Police (Law 

and Order) that he has been falsely implicated by Inspector 

Amarjit Singh in connivance with Manjeet Kaur because he 

had recorded a conversation by Inspector Amarjit Singh 

with him in the mobile that he would be arrested if he did 

not pay a certain amount to him and a compact disc 

containing the recorded conversation was prepared and 

attached with the complaint. Investigation into this case 

was entrusted to Inspector Bhupinder Singh, Deputy 

Superintendent of Police, Bhaga Pura, District Moga. On 

completion of the enquiry it was found that the allegations 

against the accused persons were false. Accordingly, on 

24.10.2007 FIR No. 198 was registered at PS City -I, Moga 

under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 

 4

Act, 1988 read with Sections 384, 211 and 120-B of the IPC 

against Inspector Amarjit Singh and Manjeet Kaur and 

respondent no.3 and Inspector Amarjit Singh were arrested. 

During investigation it also came to light that Sub-Inspector 

Raman Singh, the then S.H.O., PS Badhnikalan was helping 

Manjeet Kaur and respondent no.3 and that Sub-Inspector 

Raman Singh had accepted illegal gratification. 

Accordingly, offences under Sections 195, 201, 202, 218, 

219, 221, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC were added in the 

case registered as FIR no. 198 of 2007 and Sub-Inspector 

Raman Singh was also named as an accused alongwith 

Inspector Amarjit Singh. Sub-Inspector Raman Kumar was 

also dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of 

Police. 

4. On 11.11.2007, Manjeet Kaur and respondent no.3 

were arrested and during interrogation respondent no.3 

alleged that on 04.11.2007, Sub-Inspector Raman Kumar 

took her and Bhupinder Kumar @ Rocky Sharma to a place 

at Karnal in Haryana, where Bhupinder Kumar @ Rocky 

Sharma raped her during the night of 04/05.11.2007. On 

13.11.2007, a news item was published in the Hindustan 

 5

Times headlined `Moga Sex Scandal' and two ladies, namely, 

respondent no.3 of Village Varsaal and her relative Manjeet 

Kaur of Village Badduwal had been arrested. This news was 

also published in the Tribune dated 12.11.2007.

5. The High Court took suo motu notice of the news items 

and issued notices to the State of Punjab, Senior 

Superintendent of Police, Moga and Deputy Inspector 

General of Police, Ferozpur Range and directed the Deputy 

Superintendent of Police, Bhupinder Singh, who was 

investigating into the case, to file the status report of the 

investigation on the next date of hearing. On 15.11.2007, 

Bhupinder Kumar was arrested and FIR No. 225 was 

registered at Police Station Tarawari, Distt. Karnal under 

Sections 376, 342 and 34 of the IPC against him. On 

19.11.2007, status report was submitted before the High 

Court by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhupinder Singh 

stating that the investigation is still in progress. On 

19.11.2007, a Criminal Miscellaneous Application was 

moved by an advocate on behalf of Bhushan Garg and 

Inderjit Singh, two Municipal Councilors of Moga, alleging 

that at the instance of local influential political persons and 

 6

senior police officers, many innocent persons, including 

Bhushan Garg and Inderjit Singh were implicated in FIR 

No.82 dated 18.04.2007 registered with Police Station City-

I, Moga. The applicants apprehended that the investigation 

may not be fair and proper because senior police officers 

and highly influential persons were involved in the case. 

6. When the case was taken up before the High Court on 

20.11.2007, the Additional Advocate General placed before 

the High Court a copy of the order of the Additional Director 

General of Police (Crime), Punjab dated 19.11.2007 

entrusting the investigation into FIR No. 82 dated 

18.04.2007, FIR No. 83 dated 19.04.2007, FIR No. 160 

dated 04.06.2007 and FIR No. 198 dated 24.10.2007 to a 

special investigation team (for short `the SIT'). On 

20.11.2007, the High Court observed that the SIT had been 

constituted without the permission of the Court and issued 

notice to the CBI for the purpose of entrusting the 

investigation of the case to the CBI. 

7. Pursuant to the notice, the CBI appeared and stated in 

its reply that the CBI was over burdened with investigation 

of the cases referred to by this Court, the High Court and 

 7

the Union of India and that it was facing acute shortage of 

man power and resources and therefore the case should not 

be entrusted to the CBI particularly when it does not have 

any interstate and international ramifications. The High 

Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and 

after considering various status reports filed by the state 

police passed the impugned order on 11.12.2007 directing 

that the investigation of the cases be entrusted to the CBI. 

On 12.12.2007, the High Court passed an order clarifying 

that the CBI has been directed by the order dated 

11.12.2007 to investigate into FIR No.82, FIR No.83 and FIR 

No.198 of P.S. City I, Moga, FIR No.160 of P.S. Baghapurana 

and FIR No.225 of P.S. Tarawari, District Karnal (Haryana). 

By the order dated 12.12.2007, the High Court also stayed 

further proceedings before the Trial Court in the case 

arising out of FIR No.82 of P.S. City I, Moga, till further 

orders. 

8. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for the petitioner (State 

of Punjab) submitted that the High Court had failed to 

appreciate that on 01.06.2007 charge sheet had already 

been filed against nine accused persons after investigation 

 8

into FIR No. 82 of Police Station City-I, Moga, and, 

therefore, no direction could be given to the CBI to conduct 

the investigation into the case. He cited the observations of 

this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 

226] that the task of the monitoring Court would end the 

moment charge sheet was filed in respect of a particular 

investigation and thereafter the ordinary procedure of law 

would then take over. He submitted that after the charge 

sheet is filed, the Court has powers under sub-section (8) of 

Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation by 

the police, but the Court has no power to direct a fresh 

investigation or reinvestigation into the case by the police. 

He submitted that the High Court, therefore, could not have 

directed the CBI to start a fresh investigation or 

reinvestigation of the case after the police had filed charge 

sheet under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. In 

support of this submission, he cited the decision of this 

Court in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 

[(2009) 6 SCC 332] in which this Court made a distinction 

between further investigation and reinvestigation and held 

that under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the 

 9

Court can grant permission for further investigation and not 

for reinvestigation. 

9. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, learned counsel for 

respondent no.3, argued that once challan is filed and 

charges are framed, the High Court cannot direct 

reinvestigation by the CBI. He submitted that in the 

present case, the challan had been filed on 01.06.2007 in 

respect of FIR No.82, Police Station City-I, Moga dated 

18.04.2007 and the Court had also framed charges on 

08.11.2007 and therefore the High Court could not have 

passed the impugned order on 11.12.2007 directing the CBI 

to carryout a fresh investigation or reinvestigation into the 

case. He submitted that the High Court was conscious of 

this limitation on the power of the Court to direct further 

investigation and mentioned in the impugned order dated 

11.12.2007 that if the challan had been presented to the 

Court, the Miscellaneous Petition will stand as having 

become infructuous. He submitted that the impugned order 

passed by the High Court that the investigation of the case 

will be taken up by the CBI was, therefore, bad in law and 

should be set aside by this Court. 

 10

10. Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for 

Respondent No.1 (the CBI), on the other hand, submitted 

that this Court has held in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi 

Administration [(1979) 2 SCC 322] that even where a 

Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police 

report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the right 

of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and 

the police can exercise such right as often as necessary 

when fresh information came to light. He also relied on a 

recent decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State 

of Punjab & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 441] wherein this Court has 

sustained the order of the High Court directing investigation 

by the CBI even after the charge sheet had been filed by the 

State police on completion of the investigation. He 

submitted that in Nirmal Singh Kahlon (supra) this Court 

has clarified that the observations in Vineet Narain (supra) 

cited by Dr. Dhawan are applicable to cases where the 

investigation was being monitored and in such cases the 

monitoring of the High Court will come to an end after the 

charge sheet is filed. He submitted that in the present case, 

the High Court found that the state police is not a position 

 11

 to carry out a fair and truthful investigation and has 

 directed the investigation by the CBI in the interest of 

 justice in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the 

 Cr.P.C. 

 11. Mr. Raval further submitted that pursuant to 

 impugned order of the High Court the CBI has carried out 

 the investigation into the cases and the status report of the 

 cases is as follows:

S.No. CBI Case No. Local Police Case No. Status of the case

1. RCCHG2007S0031 FIR No. 82, 1) Investigation completed, 

 dated 18.04.2007 of which revealed that a false 

 P.S. City I, Moga. rape case was registered 

 by the Moga Police.

 2) Charge sheet has been 

 filed under Sections 366-A 

 and 406 of the IPC and 

 Sections 4 & 5 of the 

 Immoral Traffic 

 (Prevention) Act, 1956 

 against two persons, 

 namely, Simran Kaur @ 

 Indu and Ajay Kumar on 

 10.11.2008.

2. RCCHG2007A0030 FIR No.198, Investigation completed 

 dated 24.10.2007 of and charge sheet has been 

 P.S. City I, Moga. filed in Court on 

 09.11.2009 in which the 

 senior police officers of the 

 rank of SSP and SP are 

 sought to be prosecuted 

 after sanction from the 

 Central Government. 

3. RCCHG2008S0003 FIR No.83, 1) Investigation completed 

 dated 19.04.2007 of and charge sheet has been 

 P.S. City I, Moga. filed in the Court on 

 10.11.2008 against Ajay 

 Kumar and the Court 

 12

 convicted the accused on 

 30.09.2009.

 2) Accused has filed an 

 appeal in the Court of Ld. 

 Special Judge, Punjab, 

 Patiala and the appeal has 

 been dismissed on 

 09.02.2011. Accused has 

 filed CRR No. 460 of 2011 

 in the High Court, which 

 is pending.

4. RCCHG2008S0001 FIR No.160, Investigation completed 

 dated 04.06.2007 of and closure report has 

 P.S. Baghapurana, been filed in Court on 

 District Moga 10.11.2008 and the Court 

 has accepted the closure 

 report on 12.12.2008. 

5. RCCHG2008S0002 FIR No.225, Investigation completed 

 dated 15.11.2007 of and closure report filed in 

 P. S. Tarawari, the Court and the same 

 District Karnal has been accepted on 

 (Haryana) 03.06.2009.

 12. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (8) of Section 173 and Section 

 482 of the Cr.P.C. which are relevant for deciding this case 

 are quoted herein below: 

 "Section 173. Report of police officer on 

 completion of investigation - 

 (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall 

 be completed without unnecessary delay.

 (2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in 

 charge of the police station shall forward to a 

 Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the 

 offence on a police report, a report in the form 

 prescribed by the State Government, stating -

 (a) the names of the parties;

 (b) the nature of the information;

 13

 (c) the names of the persons who appear to 

 be acquainted with the circumstances of 

 the case;

 (d) whether any offence appears to have been 

 committed and, if so, by whom;

 (e) whether the accused has been arrested;

 (f) whether he has been released on his 

 bond and, if so, whether with or without 

 sureties;

 (g) whether he has been forwarded in 

 custody under Section 170;

 (h) whether the report of medical 

 examination of the woman has been 

 attached where investigation relates to an 

 offence under Section 376, 376A, 376B, 

 376C or 376D of the Indian Penal Code.

 (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in 

 such manner as may be prescribed by the 

 State Government, the action taken by 

 him, to the person, if any, by whom the 

 information relating to the commission of 

 the offence was first given. 

 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

(8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to 

preclude further investigation in respect of an 

offence after a report under Sub-Section (2) has 

been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where 

upon such an investigation, the officer in charge 

of the police station obtains further evidence, oral 

or documentary, he shall forward to the 

Magistrate a further report or reports regarding 

such evidence in the form prescribed; and the 

provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far 

as may be, apply in relation to such report or 

 14

 reports as they apply in relation to a report 

 forwarded under sub-section (2)". 

 "Section 482. Saving of inherent power of 

 High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be 

 deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of 

 the High Court to make such orders as may be 

 necessary to give effect to any order under this 

 Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any 

 Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. provides 

that every investigation by the police shall be completed 

without unnecessary delay and sub-section (2) of Section 

173 provides that as soon as such investigation is 

completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall 

forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the 

offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by 

the State Government. Under sub-section (2) of Section 

173, a police report (charge sheet or challan) is filed by the 

police after investigation is complete. Sub-section (8) of 

Section 173 states that nothing in the Section shall be 

deemed to preclude any further investigation in respect of 

an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been 

forwarded to the Magistrate. Thus, even where charge sheet 

or challan has been filed by the police under sub-section (2) 

 15

of Section 173, the police can undertake further 

investigation but not fresh investigation or re-investigation 

in respect of an offence under sub-section (8) of Section 173 

of the Cr.P.C. 

14. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., however, states that 

nothing in the Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect the 

inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as is 

necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to 

prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise 

to secure the ends of justice. Thus, the provisions of the 

Cr.P.C. do not limit or affect the inherent powers of the 

High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give 

effect to any order under the Court or to prevent the abuse 

of any process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends 

of justice. The language of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of 

the Cr.P.C., therefore, cannot limit or affect the inherent 

powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 

482 of the Cr.P.C. for fresh investigation or re-investigation 

if the High Court is satisfied that such fresh investigation or 

re-investigation is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 

 16

15. We find support for this conclusion in the following 

observations of this Court in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. 

State of Gujarat (supra) cited by Mr. Dhawan: 

 "13. It is, however, beyond any cavil that 

 "further investigation" and "reinvestigation" 

 stand on different footing. It may be that in a 

 given situation a superior court in exercise of 

 its constitutional power, namely, under 

 Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of 

 India could direct a "State" to get an offence 

 investigated and/or further investigated by a 

 different agency. Direction of a 

 reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in 

 law, no superior court would ordinarily issue 

 such a direction. Pasayat, J. in 

 Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar [(2008) 5 

 SCC 413] opined as under: (SCC p. 415, para 

 7)

 "7. At this juncture it would be 

 necessary to take note of Section 173 

 of the Code. From a plain reading of 

 the above section it is evident that 

 even after completion of investigation 

 under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of 

 the Code, the police has right to 

 further investigate under sub-section 

 (8), but not fresh investigation or 

 reinvestigation."

 A distinction, therefore, exists between a 

 reinvestigation and further investigation."

 "15. The investigating agency and/or a court 

 exercise their jurisdiction conferred on them 

 only in terms of the provisions of the Code. 

 The Courts subordinate to the High Court 

 even do not have any inherent power under 

 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal 

 17

 Procedure or otherwise. The pre-cognizance 

 jurisdiction to remand vested in the 

 subordinate courts, therefore, must be 

 exercised within the four corners of the 

 Code."

It is clear from the aforesaid observations of this Court that 

the investigating agency or the Court subordinate to the 

High Court exercising powers under Cr.P.C. have to exercise 

the powers within the four corners of the Cr.P.C. and this 

would mean that the investigating agency may undertake 

further investigation and the subordinate court may direct 

further investigation into the case where charge sheet has 

been filed under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the 

Cr.P.C. and such further investigation will not mean fresh 

investigation or re-investigation. But these limitations in 

sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in a case where 

charge sheet has been filed will not apply to the exercise of 

inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the 

Cr.P.C. for securing the ends of justice. 

16. This position of law will also be clear from the 

decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of 

Punjab & Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Raval. The facts of that 

case are that the State police had investigated into the 

 18

allegations of irregularities in selection of a large number of 

candidates for the post of Panchayat Secretaries and had 

filed a charge sheet against Nirmal Singh Kahlon. Yet the 

High Court in a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution 

passed orders on 07.05.2003 directing investigation by the 

CBI into the case as it thought that such investigation by 

the CBI was "not only just and proper but a necessity". 

Nirmal Singh Kahlon challenged the decision of the High 

Court before this Court contending inter alia that sub-

section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. did not envisage an 

investigation by the CBI after filing of a charge sheet and 

the Court of Magistrate alone has the jurisdiction to issue 

any further direction for investigation before this Court. 

Amongst the authorities cited on behalf of Nirmal Singh 

Kahlon was the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain case 

that once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed 

the task of the monitoring Court comes to an end. Yet this 

Court sustained the order of the High Court with inter alia 

the following reasons: 

 "63. The High Court in this case was not 

 monitoring any investigation. It only desired 

 that the investigation should be carried out by 

 an independent agency. Its anxiety, as is 

 19

 evident from the order dated 3-4-2002, was to 

 see that the officers of the State do not get 

 away. If that be so, the submission of Mr. Rao 

 that the monitoring of an investigation comes to 

 an end after the charge-sheet is filed, as has 

 been held by this Court in Vineet Narain and 

 M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India 

 [(2007) 1 SCC 110], loses all significance". 

Though the decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. 

State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) is in the context of the power 

of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the 

above observations will equally apply to a case where the 

power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is 

exercised to direct investigation of a case by an independent 

agency to secure the ends of justice. 

17. This leads us to the next question whether the High 

Court in the facts of the present case passed the order for 

investigation by the CBI to secure the ends of justice. The 

reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order 

dated 11.12.2007 for directing investigation by the CBI are 

extracted herein below: 

 "The Investigating Officer, who is a D.S.P. in 

 rank, will not be in a position to investigate 

 the case fairly and truthfully, as senior 

 functionaries of the State in the Police 

 Department and political leaders are being 

 named. By this we are not casting any 

 doubts on the investigating team, but it 

 20

 seems that political and administrative 

 compulsions are making it difficult for the 

 investigating team to go any further to bring 

 home the truth. Apart from revolving 

 around a few persons who have been named 

 in the status report, nothing worthwhile is 

 coming out regarding the interrogation of 

 the police officers, political leaders and 

 others. The investigation seems to have 

 slowed down because of political 

 considerations. 

 Not less than eight police officials, political 

 leaders, Advocates, Municipal Councilors 

 and number of persons from the general 

 public have been named in the status 

 report. We feel that justice would not be 

 done to the case, if it stays in the hands of 

 the Punjab Police. Having said this, we 

 want to make one thing very clear that the 

 team comprising of Shri Ishwar Chander, 

 D.I.G, Shri L.K. Yadav, S.S.P. Moga and Shri 

 Bhupinder Singh, D.S.P. have done a 

 commendable job in unearthing the scam.

 We feel it a fit case to be handed over to the 

 C.B.I."

On a reading of the reasons given by the High Court, we find 

that the High Court was of the view that the investigating 

officer even of the rank of DSP was not in a position to 

investigate the case fairly and truthfully because senior 

functionaries of the State police and political leaders were to 

be named and political and administrative compulsions 

were making it difficult for the investigating team to go any 

 21

further to bring home the truth. It further observed that not 

less than eight police officials, political leaders, advocates, 

municipal councilors besides a number of persons 

belonging to general public had been named in the status 

report of the State local police. In the peculiar facts and 

circumstances of the case, the High Court felt that justice 

would not be done to the case if the investigation stays in 

the hands of the local police and for these reasons directed 

that the investigation of the case be handed over to the CBI. 

The narration of the facts and circumstances in paragraph 

2, 3, 4 and 5 of this judgment also support the conclusion 

of the High Court that investigation by an independent 

agency such as the CBI was absolutely necessary in the 

interests of justice. Moreover, even though the High Court 

in the impugned order dated 11.12.2007 did make a 

mention that in case challan has been filed, then the 

petition will stand as having become infructuous in the 

order dated 12.12.2007, the High Court has stayed further 

proceedings before the trial court in the case arising out of 

FIR No.82 of P.S. City I, Moga, till further orders. Thus, the 

High Court was of the view that even though investigation is 

 22

complete in one case and charge sheet has been filed by the 

Police, it was necessary in the ends of justice that the CBI 

should carry out an investigation into the case.

18. In the recent case of State of West Bengal and Others 

v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal 

and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 571] a Constitution Bench of this 

Court, while holding that no Act of Parliament can exclude 

or curtail the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of 

the Constitution, has cautioned that the extra-ordinary 

powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the 

Constitution must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in 

exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to 

provide credibility and confidence in investigation or where 

the incident may have national or international 

ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for 

doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental rights. 

This caution equally applies to the cases where the High 

Court exercises inherent powers under Section 482 of the 

Cr.P.C. to direct investigation by the CBI for securing the 

ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of this case, 

however, the High Court has held that the state local police 

 23

was unable to carry out investigation into the cases and for 

securing the ends of justice the investigation has to be 

handed over to the CBI. In other words, this was one of 

those extra-ordinary cases where the direction of the High 

Court for investigation by the CBI was justified.

19. This is, therefore, not a fit case in which we should 

exercise our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution 

and grant leave to appeal. The Special Leave Petition is 

dismissed. 

 ..........................J.

 (R.V. Raveendran)

 ..........................J.

 (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,September 02, 2011. 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,296 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: