2008 (3) TMI 734 - SC - Indian Laws

Nature of jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code - Registration of a crime and Investigation - Principles Of Natural Justice - Administrative control of the High Court - High court s master for the roster - Anonymous petition treated as Public interest Litigation or not - Whether the individual Judges ought to entertain communications and letters personally addressed to them and initiate action - Whether the contents of the petition submitted by the victim and as well as the allegations made in the anonymous complaint reveal any cause for issuing directions relieving the Investigating Officer of his statutory power and duty to investigate Crime No. 381 of 2005 under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code? - Ld Judge was of the view that the subsequent petition sent by Mini Varghese dated 27.10.2005 ought to have been treated as a separate petition praying for an order for proper investigation. The learned Judge was also of the view that the said petition was required to be clubbed with the anonymous petition. HELD THAT - The power has to be exercised sparingly carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is well settled that Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power which the court possessed before the enactment of the Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. Can investigation be ordered by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code based on such vague and indefinite allegations made in unsigned petition without even arriving at any prima facie conclusion that the contents thereof reveal commission of any cognizable offence - In our view the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot be converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in motion. Neither the accused nor the complainant or informant are entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a crime in which they may be interested. We find that the High Court has merely quoted certain allegations made against the appellant and others and proceeded on the basis of those allegations made in the anonymous petition without forming any prima facie opinion with regard to those allegations. It is well settled that a public interest litigation can be entertained by the Constitutional Courts only at the instance of a bona fide litigant. The author of the letter in this case is anonymous there is no way to verify his bonafides and in fact no effort was made by the Court to verify about the authenticity truth or otherwise of the contents of the petition. It is not the case of the appellant that no Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained on the strength of a letter addressed by a bona fide litigant to the High Court. This Court in Sunil Batra (II) Vs. Delhi Administration 1978 (8) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT has accepted a letter written to the Supreme Court by one Sunil Batra a prisoner from Tihar Jail Delhi complaining of inhuman torture in the jail. The law in this regard is summarized in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary 1992 (8) TMI 301 - SUPREME COURT held that It is clear that only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy suffering from violation of their fundamental rights but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating any personal grievance deserves rejection at the threshold. How to verify the credentials character or standing of the informant who does not disclose his identity? In the instant case there is no whisper in the order passed by the High Court about any attempts made to verify the credentials character or standing of the informant. Obviously the High Court could not have verified the same since the petition received by it is an unsigned one. In our view the Public Interest Litigant must disclose his identity so as to enable the court to decide that the informant is not a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern. In such view of the matter the suo motu action initiated cannot be treated as the one in public interest litigation. Administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of the High Court both judicial and administrative; that the Chief justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted; and the puisne judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions; that the puisne judges cannot pick and choose any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice. State of Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand Ors. 1997 (12) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT . In our view the learned judge ought not to have entertained the anonymous petition contents of which remain unverified and made it basis for setting the law in motion as against the appellant as he was not entrusted with the judicial duty of disposing of PIL matters. Therefore directions issued by the High Court constituting the Special Investigation Team to investigate into the allegations made in anonymous petition are set aside. The individual judges ought not to entertain communications and letters personally addressed to them and initiate action on the judicial side based on such communication so as to avoid embarrassment; that all communications and petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be addressed to the entire Court that is to say the Chief Justice and his companion Judges. The individual letters if any addressed to a particular judge are required to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration as to the proposed action on such petitions. Each Judge cannot decide for himself as to what communication should be entertained for setting the law in motion be it in PIL or in any jurisdiction. RELIEF - However the fact remains that the Circle Inspector of Police Chalakuddy having registered Crime No. 381 of 2005 made investigation in exercise of statutory power coupled with duty under the orders of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Chalakuddy. The learned Judge having entertained the petition/complaint from the victim ordered further investigation into the crime by the Special Investigation Team headed by the third respondent. The third respondent having completed the investigation arrived at certain conclusions but unnecessarily kept the matter pending on the ground that the paternity of the first child is to be verified with the accused and some other persons who were also found closely associated with the victim during the relevant period. This is beyond one s imagination as to how and why such an inquiry is required to be made. The First Information Report material gathered during the investigation contents of the victim s complaint and conclusions drawn by the Special Investigation Team themselves do not justify any such further enquiry. Thus we direct the third respondent to make available the material gathered during the course of investigation in Crime No. 381 of 2005 to the Circle Inspector of Police Chalakuddy (Investigating Officer) within two weeks from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter the Investigating Officer shall submit appropriate report in accordance with the provisions of the Code within four weeks before the Magistrate who shall consider the report to be so filed judicially in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case - Subject to the above directions the impugned order of the High Court is set aside - Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Scope, content, and ambit of the inherent power conferred on the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Validity of the High Court's procedure and jurisdiction in ordering an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) based on an anonymous petition.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining and acting upon an anonymous petition.
4. Principles of natural justice and the locus standi of the appellant.
5. Whether the anonymous petition can be treated as Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
6. Importance of judicial roster and the role of the Chief Justice in the distribution of cases.

Detailed Analysis:

Scope, Content, and Ambit of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The Supreme Court examined the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, emphasizing that such powers must be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with caution. The inherent jurisdiction is to be used to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and to secure the ends of justice. The Court reiterated that the power of investigation of an offence is exclusively reserved for the police, and judicial interference is not warranted unless there is a clear case of abuse of power by the police.

Validity of High Court's Procedure and Jurisdiction:
The Court found that the High Court's order directing an investigation by an SIT based on vague and indefinite allegations in an anonymous petition was not justified. The High Court's action of relieving the Investigating Officer of his statutory duty without any prima facie case of bias or irregularity was deemed improper. The Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary should not interfere with police investigations unless there is clear evidence of mala fide actions.

Justification of Entertaining an Anonymous Petition:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the anonymous petition, as it lacked verification of the informant's credentials and the authenticity of the allegations. The Court stressed that setting criminal law in motion based on an anonymous petition without recording reasons that prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence is improper.

Principles of Natural Justice and Locus Standi:
The Court ruled that the High Court's order directing an investigation without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant violated the principles of natural justice. The appellant, being directly affected by the order, was entitled to notice and a hearing. The Court clarified that judicial orders affecting one's reputation cannot be passed without giving the affected party a chance to present their case.

Treatment of Anonymous Petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
The Supreme Court held that an anonymous petition cannot be treated as PIL. For a PIL to be entertained, the petitioner must act bona fide with a view to vindicating the cause of justice, and their identity must be disclosed to verify their credentials. The Court emphasized that the judiciary should guard against the misuse of its process by unscrupulous litigants.

Importance of Judicial Roster:
The Court reiterated that the Chief Justice of the High Court has the exclusive prerogative to distribute judicial business and allocate cases. Individual judges should not entertain communications and petitions addressed personally to them without appropriate orders from the Chief Justice. The Court stressed that maintaining the institutional integrity of the judiciary is paramount.

Relief and Directions:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order constituting the SIT and directed the third respondent to hand over the investigation materials to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chalakuddy, who should then submit a report to the Magistrate. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and directed that copies of the judgment be sent to all High Courts in the States.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside, emphasizing the proper exercise of judicial powers and adherence to procedural fairness and natural justice principles.