2009 (9) TMI 940 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Courts can monitor investigations in respect of offences alleged to have been committed when the investigation had already been commenced by the investigating agency?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. High Court's interference in the investigation process.
2. Jurisdiction and power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The role of the courts in monitoring investigations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. High Court's Interference in the Investigation Process:
- The appeals challenge the Gujarat High Court's orders directing the manner and mode of investigation in FIR No. 254 of 2008.
- The High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, "C" Division, Ahmedabad City, to file a progress report and not to submit the final report without prior intimation to the Court.
- The appellant argued that the High Court's orders hampered the investigation and caused severe prejudice by taking over the investigation.
- Reference was made to Supreme Court decisions disapproving court interference in ongoing investigations, such as *Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. Vs. Niyamavedi* and *M.C. Abraham & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.*, which emphasized that courts should refrain from directing investigations.

2. Jurisdiction and Power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India:
- The respondents argued that the High Court has wide powers under Articles 226 and 227 to direct public authorities to perform their duties in accordance with the law.
- The High Court's intervention was justified due to the tardy and slow progress of the investigation.
- The Supreme Court acknowledged that while courts generally do not interfere with investigations, they possess the power to do so in extraordinary circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.
- Cases cited by the respondents, such as *S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors.* and *Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr.*, supported the view that courts could intervene if the investigation was not conducted properly.

3. The Role of the Courts in Monitoring Investigations:
- The Supreme Court recognized that courts, particularly the High Courts and the Supreme Court, are the sentinels of justice and have extraordinary powers to ensure the protection of citizens' rights.
- The High Court's repeated intervention and orders were necessary to ensure diligent investigation.
- The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellant's contention that the High Court directed the investigation's manner and mode, noting that the High Court's monitoring was due to the slow progress of the investigation.
- The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's orders, stating that courts could monitor investigations when satisfied that the investigation was not proceeding properly or was influenced by interested persons.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's orders. It emphasized that courts have the power to monitor investigations in appropriate cases to ensure justice and proper conduct of investigations, particularly when there are extraordinary circumstances or indications of improper investigation.