Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area
within the limits of cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the
local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or
try under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. A Magistrate of
Court of Law is empowered under Sec 190 Cr. P.C to order such investigation,
and the word investigation has been defined in Sec 2 (h) of The Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, and it includes all the proceedings under the Code for
the First Information Report (FIR) was sent to Court, in the course of the
the several offences, on the basis of such information itself, the investigating
officer shall proceed with the investigation ,and if necessary, to take measures
for the discovery and arrest of the offenders and file charge sheet where a
prima facie case has been made out. In Sec 173(2) (e), Criminal Procedural
concerned by the officer in-charge of the Police station whether the accused
had been arrested or not. It does not mean that it is necessary to arrest the
accused before submission of charge-sheet in every case. Arrest of the accused
is justified or necessary only if a prima facie case is made out, according to the
may arise. The Report may conclude that an offence appears to have been
may either:-
2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or to take cognizance
3) may direct further investigation under Sec 156(3) and require Police to make
report as per Sec 173(8)-(AIR 1968 SC 117 ; AIR 1980 SC 1883 / AIR 1955
SC 196).
of Cr. P.C.
Cr. P. Cis mandatorily to be given to the complainant, and the Magistrate must
give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the
Magistrate may direct further investigation under Sec 156(3) and require Police
to make report as per Sec 173(8) where a Final Report is placed before him
under Sec 173 (2) (AIR 1968 SC 117; AIR 1980 SC 1883 / AIR 1955 SC
196) .Also, further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because
cognizance has been taken by the Court. When defective investigation comes
should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further
investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the
matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial. The right of Police , even
after submission of a report u/s (173(2) Cr. P.C , is not exhausted , and the
Police can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information
comes into light( Ram Lal Narang V. State of Delhi AIR 1979 SC 1791;
Bom).
The High Court or Sessions Court may call for and examine the records of any
proceedings before any inferior criminal courts under the Powers of Revision.
First revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court, and second revision by
High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Sec 482 which powers are not
a substitute for a second revision under sec 397(3) and Supreme Court held
that High Court wrongly exercised its jurisdiction under Sec 482 Cr P C.
In Sabir V. Jaswant , 2002 Cr. L. J 4563 All , the Allahabad High Court held
that the revision against the order of Magistrate under Sec 156(3) directing the
The discretion of the trail court to proceed against the person who is not an
accused at the trail if it appears from the circumstances of the case, that such
person, other than the accused, is involved in the crime is quintessence of Sec
319 Cr. P.C (Girish Yadav & Others, appellants, V. State of MP,
respondent, AIR 1996 SC 3098).Thus, the trail court in India is vested with
ample powers to proceed against an accused any time during the trail, if a
evidence tendered during trail of the case if the offence is to be tried by a Court
of Session, and it was held :- Material placed before committal Court cannot be
against a person who is not charge-sheeted U/s 319 after the trail is begun
and recorded some evidence of the prosecution (Tek Narayn Prasad Yadav V.
State of Bihar 1999 SCC (Cri) 356). Even if the trail is completed, fresh trail
738).
After the order for further investigation, then for the second time the Magistrate
cannot compel the police to take a particular view in the matter and submit the
challan in the case. if the Magistrate does not agree with the opinion formed by
the Police and still suspects that an offence has been committed, he is entitled,
notwithstanding the opinion of the Police, to take cognizance under Sec 190 (1)
(c) of the Cr. P.C, but he cannot direct the Police to re-investigate the matter for
the third time ( Harinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 Cri. L J 2648
P&H).
The case for re-investigation is altogether a subject matter and discretion of the
concerned High Court or Supreme Court under Article 226 and Article 32 of
the Supreme Court of India , the ultimate appellate forum. In Kashmiri Devi
v. Delhi ( Admn) AIR 1988 SC 1323, the case for re-investigation was
considered. In this case the Act of Police in shielding the guilty members of
Veer Bhan 1992 Jab L J 327, the discretion for a re-investigation was denied,
since the facts and stage of the case was entirely different, and held that for re-
investigation of the case unless some fresh facts have come to light or an
additional evidence has been discovered or there exit compelling fresh grounds,
The provision u/s 482 Criminal Procedure Code states that nothing in Cr. P.C
shall be deemed to limit or affect the Inherent Powers of High Court to make
such orders as necessary to effect of any order under Cr. P.C to prevent the
abuse of the process of any of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. Thus the High Court U/s 482 Cr. P.C is having ample powers to order
Limitation for further investigation u/s 173 (8) of Cr .P.C, for further
investigation by Sub-Ordinate Courts , where charge sheet has filed will not
apply to the powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C by the High Court ( State of West Bengal
In Vishnu Dutt V. Govind Das ( 1995) Cr. L. J 263 ( Raj) , it was clarified
Police and took cognizance of the offences against the accused, it was held that
482 Cr. P. C.
In R.S.Khemka V. State of Bihar A. I. R 1993 SCW 2427/ 1993 (3) SCC 54/
409 IPC, and the High Court quashed the prosecution on the ground that
alternative remedy under the Companies Act was available. The Supreme
Court, however, set aside High Court order directing the trail court to proceed
with the case according to Law. It was observed that the accused could not use
the corporate personality of the company as a shield to evade the prosecution
under the IPC, and further cautioned that the High Court should not, while
exercising power u/s 482 of the Code, usurp the jurisdiction of the trail court.
In Suresh Prasad Yadav V. S. K Batwa 1992 Cr. L J 3192 (All), there was
truck, the matter was essentially of civil nature and a criminal case u/s 403 /
422 IPC was a blatant abuse of the process of the Court, and criminal
held that no appeal against order u/s 482 Cr. P.C can be preferred since the
In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal(1992 Supp (1) 335) , Supreme Court has
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
parallel Labour Court / Civil cases were pending, and Supreme Court held that
the proceedings were with malicious / ulterior motives , and complainant did
not approached with clean hands, and thereby exercise of powers under Sec
482 is justifiable.
Others(1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power under section
482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the
process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent
ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be
administered according to laws made by the legislature. This case has been
followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this court and other courts.
In Chandrapal Singh & Others v. Maharaj Singh & Another (1982) 1 SCC
466, in a landlord and tenant matter, where criminal proceedings had been
which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when
stated are so telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous.
The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase.
Unless the courts come down heavily upon such persons, the whole judicial
process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined and
The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is
for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a
cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the
the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also
In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others (2006) 6 SCC
the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do
observed that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve
Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment of the High Court in
declining to exercise its inherent power has led to grave miscarriage of justice.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment in order to
prevent abuse of the process of the court and to otherwise secure the ends of
the justice directed that all the proceedings emanating from the FIR shall stand
quashed.
complaint of cheating U/s 406 , 420 , 468, 120-B IPC by company officials ,
concerned High Court, but the same rejected since it was not appropriate to
quash the order of cognizance u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. The Honorable Supreme
. the question yet remains for consideration is whether the allegations made
and the witness before the Magistrate taken on their face value, do make the
offence for which the Magistrate has taken cognizance of? The learned counsel
put this argument at the time of framing of charges, and therefore, this Court
should not interfere with the order of Magistrate taking cognizance, at this
because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that
the court even at an earliest point of time when the Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offence and summons the accused to appear to contend that
the very issuance of the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground
that no offence can be said to have been made out on the allegations made in
the complaint petition. It has been held in a number of cases that power under
Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But
allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the
abuse of the process of court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that
in such case power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised. Bearing in
mind the parameters laid down by this Court in several decisions for exercise
of power under Section 482 of the Code, we have examined the allegations
made in the complaint petition and the statement of the complainant and the
two other witnesses made on oath before the Magistrate. We are clearly of the
opinion that the necessary ingredients of any of the offence have not been
made out so far as the appellants are concerned. The petition of complaint is a
vague one and excepting the bald allegation that the shares of the complainant
have been transferred on the forged signatures, nothing further has been
started and there is not an iota of material to indicate how all or any of these
any manner, and therefore, in our considered opinion even if the allegations
made in the complaint petition and the statement of complaint and his
witnesses are taken on their face value, the offence under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to have been
made out. This being the position the impugned order of the Magistrate taking
cognizance of the offence dated 5.2.1996 so far as it relates the appellants are
concerned cannot be sustained and the High Court also committed error in not
invoking its power under Section 482 of the Code. In the aforesaid premises,
the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Magistrate
dated 5.2.96 taking cognizance of the offence as against the appellants stand
quashed. It is true that out of 9 officials of the company who are the accused
persons in the criminal case only 7 of them have preferred this special leave
petition and R.K. Sharma, Whole Time Director, s well as Capt. G.P.S.
Choudhary, Director of the company have not preferred the special leave
not make out any offence against any of the officers of the company it would be
futile to allow continuance of the criminal proceedings so far as the said two
The Supreme Court not only quashed the cognizance taken by Magistrate of
the offences as against appellants, but also, against the said two officers of the
Company.
In State of W. Bengal & another V. Moh. Khalid & Others (1995 AIR 785 /
1995 SCC 91( 684) regarding the exercise of inherent jurisdiction in quashing
can be done:-
(ii) The FIR and the complaint do not make out the offence.
(i) not under the inherent powers but under the Constitution of India;
This can be done both under the inherent powers and Article 226 of the
Constitution of India:-
(a) on account of the existence of legal bar or where there is no material for
(c) after charges are framed when there is legal evidence to sustain the charges.
various judgments, pointed out that Article 136 of the Indian Constitution was
of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities
Others (CA No. 10660 / 2010), wherein the Writ Petition filed by the
appellants before the Delhi High Court for ordering an investigation by the
Scam for unearthing the role of respondent No. 5 Shri A. Raja , then Union
Minister and others was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The appellants
challenged the order under Article 136 , and SC granted SLP and issued
following direction:-
large number of ineligible applicants and who was responsible for the same .
2006 sc 915 / Cr. LJ 964), Supreme Court had considered the its
which, the Gujarat High Court declined to exercise its power under Sec 482
Cr.P.C . Considering the nature of allegations involved and the facts and
circumstances of the case, Supreme Court was also of the view of the Gujarat
High Court.
In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, 1988 (4) SCC 655 at pages 662-663:
"It is trite that jurisdiction under S. 482, Cr. P. C., which saves the inherent
power of the High Court, to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent
jurisdiction the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the
That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before
him. Though it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any inflexible rules
to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that
when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a
proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the
High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in
the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any
"It is, therefore; manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the
initial stages can be quashed only if on the face of the complaint or the papers
that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or
subtracting anything, if no offence is made out then the High Court will be
justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Sec. 482
Thus, only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of
not correct, the High Court, in its discretion, prevent the abuse of the process
High Court or Supreme Court, can exercise the constitutional powers under
section 226 and 32 respectively of the Constitution of India, and could direct a
State to get an offence investigated and / or further investigated by a different
In Vineet Narain & Others V. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 266, Supreme
Court entertained the petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution; and
brief narration of the facts of this case is; on 25th March, 1991, one Ashfak
Surrender Kumar Jain, his brothers, relations and businesses. Along with
Indian and foreign currency, the CBI seized two diaries and two note books
from the premises. They contained detailed accounts of vast payments made to
various high ranking politicians, in power and out of power, and of high
the Jains or the contents of their diaries, the present writ petitions were filed
Constitution of the India. The gist of the allegations in the writ petitions is that
perform their duties and legal obligations inasmuch as they had failed to
investigate matters arising out of the seizure of the "Jan diaries"; that the
by clandestine and illegal means using tainted funds obtained through `havala'
sources, given for unlawful consideration that the CBI and other Government
agencies had failed to investigate the matter, take it to its logical conclusion
and prosecute all persons who were found to have committed and offence; that
this was done with a view to protect the persons involved, who were very
influential and powerful; that the matter disclosed a nexus between crime and
corruption at high places in public life and it posed a serious threat to the
integrity, security and economy of the nation; that probity in public life, the
rule of law and the preservation of democracy required that the Government
agencies the compelled to duly perform their legal obligations and to proceed in
was placed in the political hierarchy. The writ petitions prayed, inter alia, for
The first class relates to investigations in the matter of the 'Jain diaries". The
adopted.
The Supreme Court held We have taken the view that, given the political
personalities of the propel to be investigated in the "Jain diaries" case and the
hear the matter through and issue a writ of mandamus, leaving it to the
authorities to comply with it, but to keep the matter pending while the
investigations were being carried on, ensuring that this was done by
monitoring them from time to time and issuing orders in this behalf. Our
reasoned orders are dated. 18.4.1995, 16.1.1996 [1996 (2) Scale (SP) 42],
30.1.1996 [1996 (2) SCC 199], 22.2.1996 [1996 (2) Scale (SP) 84], 1.3.1996
[1997 (4) SCC 778], 13.3.1996 [1996 (4) Scale (SP) 3], 1.5.1996 [1996 (4) Scale
(SP) 56], 26.7.1996 (6) Scale (SP) 24], 9.7.1997 [1997 (5) Scale 254]. Orders in
similar matters, being the orders dated 12.2.1996 [1996 (3) Scale (SP) 35],
2.14.1996, 26.4.1996 [1996 (4) Scale (SP) 71], 26.7.1996 [1996 (6) Scale (SP)
23] and 7.10.1996 [1996 (6) SCC 354] in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 640 of 1995 -
Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India and Others- and orders dated
Subramaniam Swamy vs. Director, CBI & Ors., are also relevant.
The sum and substance of these orders is that the CBI and other
Governmental agencies had not carried out their public duty to investigate the
offences disclosed; that none stands above the law so that an alleged offence by
that the sense that we would do what we permissibly could to see that the
investigations progressed while yet ensuring that we did not direct or channel
those investigations or in any other manner prejudice the right of those who
might be accused to a full and fair trial. We made it clear that the task of the
monitoring court would and the moment a charge-sheet was filed in respect of
a particular investigation and that the ordinary processes of the law would
leading, we found it necessary to direct the CBI not to report the progress of
the investigations to the person occupying the highest office in the political
executive this was done to eliminate any impression of bias or lack of fairness
Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the
3. The CVC shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI. While
visible objectivity in the mechanism to be established for over viewing the CBI's
over the CBI's functioning. The CBI shall report to the CVC about cases taken
sheets are filed and their progress. The CVC shall review the progress of all
cases moved by the CBI for sanction of prosecution of public servants which
are pending with competent authorities, especially those in which sanction has
agency.
5. The CVC shall have a separate section in its Annual Report on the CBI's
Director shall be considered by the Committee for making the best choice. The
Committee shall draw up a panel of IPS officers on the basis of their seniority,
the panel recommended by the Selection Committee. If none among the panel
is found suitable, the reasons the reasons thereof shall be recorded and the
7. The Director, CBI shall have a minimum tenure of two years, regardless of
the date of his superannuation. This would ensure that an officer suitable in all
respects is not ignored merely because he has less than two years to
including the need for him to take up a more important assignment, should
9. The Director, CBI shall have full freedom for allocation of work within the
agency as also for constituting teams for investigations. Any change made by
12. The CBI Manual based on statutory provisions of the Cr. P.C. provides
essential guidelines for the CBI's functioning. It is imperative that the CBI
investigative functions, like raids, seizure and arrests. Any deviation from the
13. The Director, CBI shall be responsible for ensuring the filing of charge
sheets in courts within the stipulated time limits, and the matter should be
for redress of genuine grievances in a manner which does not compromise with
15. Time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be
strictly adhered to. However, additional time of one month may be allowed
where consultation is required with the Attorney General (AG) or any other law
16. The Director, CBI should conduct regular appraisal of personnel to prevent
State of W. Bengal & another V. Moh. Khalid & Others (1995 AIR 785 /
1995 SCC 91( 684)was a set of writ petitions filed in the High Court of
Calcutta challenging the validity of sanction and taking cognizance of the cases
against each of the respondents by the Designated Court under the Terrorist
'TADA').It was held that the High Court must assume each of the allegations
that the High Court has clearly exceeded its powers under Article 226 of the
Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and direct
the Designated Court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law with
utmost expedition.
664: (1994 AIR SCW 2930), after holding that the High Court in writ petition
under Article 226 can interfere only in extreme cases where charges ex facie do
not constitute offence under TADA it was held in paragraph 7 at pages 669-70:
"The first question is: Whether the High Court was empowered in the present
case to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine
the correctness of the view taken by the Designated Court and to quash the
prosecution of the respondent under the TADA Act? Shri Jethmalani
(1960) 3 SCR 388 : (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (1992 AIR SCW 237), that in the facts of this case,
the High Court had such a jurisdiction since there is no accusation against the
must result in his conviction for an offence punishable under TADA Act. We
TADA Act, then the High Court may be justified in invoking the power under
Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the detention of the accused
is not under the provisions of TADA Act. We may hasten to add that this can
happen only in extreme cases which would be rare and that power of the High
Court is not exercisable in cases like the present where it may be debatable
not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution and the gamut of the procedure prescribed under TADA Act must
be followed, namely, raising the objection before the Designated Court and, if
Designated Court that the Act applies. We have no doubt that in the present
case wherein the High Court had to perform the laboured exercise of
respondent and the merits of the findings recorded by the Designated Court
holding that the provisions of TADA Act were attracted, there was sufficient
indication that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution was not available. The ratio of the decisions of this Court in R. P.
Kapur and Bhajan Lal on which reliance is placed by Shri. Jethmalani, has no
application to the facts of the present case. There was thus no justification for
the High Court in the present case to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution for examining the merits of the controversy much less for
In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 (I) SCC 222: (1991 AIR SCW 1034),
Supreme Court had ruled that writ petition should not be entertained against
(1) State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Hamid,1994 (2) SCC 664, para 7 : (1994 AIR
SCW 2930); (2) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (1992
AIR SCW 237); (3) State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, para
68 at p. 269 : (1991 AIR SCW 1034); (4) Mahinder Kaur v. Rajinder Singh,
1992 Suppl (2) SCC 25; (5) Radhey Shyam Khemka v. State of Bihar; 1993 (3)
SCC 54 : (1993 AIR SCW 2427); (6) State of Bihar v. Murad Ali, 1988 (4) SCC
655 at 662 : (AIR 1989 SC 1).
In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 at pp. 224-225:
(1991 AIR SCW 1034) (at pp. 1052, 1067, 1068), the Supreme Courtheld:
"At a stage when the police report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. has been
scrutiny, the High Court would do well to discipline itself not to undertake
High Court fell into grave error in appreciating the documents and affidavits
questions of fact in its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 and pronouncing the
converting itself into a trial Court. This was not at all a case where High Court
Judge was seized of the matter. He had heard the argument on the question of
cognizance and had reserved the orders. The High Court did not even permit
circumstances, could not have assumed jurisdiction and put an end to the
matter on merit on the guise of prima facie evidence to stand an accused for
trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial under Article 226 or 227 even
before the competent Magistrate or the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the
offence. The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the
base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent Court. It is not the
case that no offence had been made out in the charge sheets and the first
Investigation Department for each of the provinces, and that the Criminal
The CB-CID takes over matters usually by a request from the State government
The Central Bureau of Investigation traces its origin to the Special Police
Establishment (SPE) which was set up in 1941 by the Government of India. The
functions of the SPE then were to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in
transactions with the War & Supply Department of India during World War II.
Even after the end of the War, the need for a Central Government agency to
was felt. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was therefore brought into
force in 1946. This Act transferred the superintendence of the SPE to the Home
Department and its functions were enlarged to cover all departments of the
Govt. of India. The jurisdiction of the SPE extended to all the Union Territories
and could be extended also to the States with the consent of the State
Government concerned.
The DSPE acquired its popular current name, Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI), through a Home Ministry resolution dated 1.4.1963. Initially the offences
Central Govt. servants. In due course, with the setting up of a large number of
brought under CBI purview. Similarly, with the nationalization of the banks in
1969, the Public Sector Banks and their employees also came within the ambit
of the CBI.
Other than these, CBI conducts investigation under the Supreme Court or High
Court Orders.
National Investigation Agency (N I A), was formed after the terrorist attack in
Subject to the fact and situation of each case the superior courts, at any time,
3613 9 SC), the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the matter was to be
State of Pujab & Others ( 2009 1 SCC 441 ), the Supreme Courthas
sustained the order of High Court , directing investigation by the CBI even after
the filing of charge sheet by the State Police. In P&H High Court Bar
Association v. State of Punjab, 1994 Cr. L.J 1368, A.I.R 1994 SC 1023 it
was held that the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, and to do
complete justice in the matter and further to instill confidence in the public
filed by a RAJYA SABHA MEMBER and Secretary of the Tamil Nadu State
litigation with a complaint that the people of Vachathi had been victims of
brutal attacks by the Forest and Police personnel, for about three days since
20-6-1992. The village has become totally deserted and the immediate
requirement is to enable the inhabitants to come back and settle in the village.
The village has about 200 small houses and the people are engaged in
the above said attack and the fact that 200 men and women had been arrested
and remanded to judicial custody. After gathering all details, the petitioner
demanding action against the Officials, who had committed offences of looting
the houses and raping women and also demanding compensation for the loss,
suffered by the said villagers. The above said Shanmugam also sent similar
representation to the Chief Minister. But, there was no reply to either of the
representations. Hearing in this matter, the Madras High Court relied mainly
Investigation Branch, Customs House, Madras - 1 Crl. O.P. No. 5540 of 1993,
follows :-
investigate the matter any further. Therefore, I am firmly of the view that
find out all those involved in this crime of very great magnitude and place them
In State of West Bengal v. Sampatlal , 1985 A I R 195 / SCR (2) 256, the
Supreme Court has held that when a direction is issued by the Court to the
CBI to conduct investigation in the crime, sanction under Section 6 of the Delhi
Likewise in Inder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 8 SCC 372, the Supreme
age from 85 to 14 years by a senior police officer and some policemen, using
official machinery for the purpose and when the Court found that the State
Thus the Madras High Court in A. Nallasivams case held that the Central
Bureau of Investigation has to find out all those involved in the relevant crimes
and place them before the Judicial Authority for trial. The Central Bureau of
The Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Art. 142 to order a CBI
enquiry without State government consent where such consent was required
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court
sparingly, for giving such direction to CBI to investigate in certain cases, (vide
Kashmiri Devi V. Delhi Administration and another 1988 AIR 1323). A two-
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has by an order dated 10.03.1989, referred
the question whether the High Court can order CBI to investigate a cognizable
offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government
or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf under
Others, SLP Criminal No. 792 / 2008, (2011) 11 SCR 281 was :- On
was published in the Hindustan 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:-- 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
investigating into the case, to file the status report of the investigation on the
Constitution.
The Supreme Court refereed case laws as to: - Vineet Narain v. Union of India
(1998) 1 SCC 226: 1997(6) Suppl.SCR 595; Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State
of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332: 2009 (7) SCR 1126; Ram Lal Narang v. State
Punjab and Ors. (2009) 1SCC 441: 2008 (14) SCR 1049; State of West Bengal
and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 571
The Supreme Court held that :- In State of West Bengal and Others v.
[(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
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 held, where charge sheet has been filed, and High
Court held that the same cannot limit or affect the inherent power of High
necessary to serve the ends of justice. This was a case where senior
would not be done if local police investigated, and thereby the High Court given
Hence, concluded that it is not a fit case in which Supreme Court should
exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and grant leave to
As soon as investigation is complete, according to Sec 173 (2) of Cr. P.C, the
report, if any. However, the Report should contain accompaniments which are
On receipt of a Police Report, the Magistrate may (must) take cognizance, and
shall decide, as per Sec 190(1) (b) Cr. P.C, or proceed as per alternatives
available with him under Cr.P.C. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding,
Magistrate shall dismiss the complaint, as per Sec 203 of Cr.P.C, and shall
consideration of the record of the cases and the documents submitted, and
after submission of the accused and by the prosecution, if the judge consider
that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, judge can discharge the
P.C.