2009 (9) TMI 1035 - SC - Indian Laws

High Court jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence - Commission of offences u/s 406 and 420 of the IPC - while the investigation was in progress, for some inexplicable reasons, the respondent moved the High Court u/s 482 - seeking directions to the police to seize an amount of ₹ 2,28,00,000/- from the appellants - facilitating the registration of 64 acres of land under the MOU which amount is alleged to have been withheld by the appellants together with a sum of ₹ 1 crore which is stated to have been paid by him to the appellants - Whether it is open to the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the CrPC to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence? HELD THAT - It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed. In M.C. Abraham Anr. V. State of Maharashtra Ors. 2002 (12) TMI 650 - SUPREME COURT , this Court observed ''Since the power is discretionary, a police officer is not always bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable offence. Since an arrest is in the nature of an encroachment on the liberty of the subject and does affect the reputation and status of the citizen, the power has to be cautiously exercised. It depends inter alia upon the nature of the offence alleged and the type of persons who are accused of having committed the cognizable offence. Obviously, the power has to be exercised with caution and circumspection. The High Court, without recording any reason whatsoever, directed the police that it is obligatory on their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property and filing of charge sheet. It is difficult to discern as to how such directions resulting in far reaching consequences could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code. The High Court interfered with the investigation of crime which is within the exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police to investigate the case from a particular angle and take certain steps which the police depending upon the evidence collected and host of other circumstances may or may not have attempted to take any such steps in its discretion. It is not necessary that every investigation should result in arrest, seizure of the property and ultimately in filing of the charge sheet. The police, in exercise of its statutory power coupled with duty, upon investigation of a case, may find that a case is made out requiring it to file charge sheet or may find that no case as such is made out. It needs no reiteration that the jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code conferred on the High Court has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the test laid down in the provision itself. The High Court, without realizing the consequences, issued directions in a casual and mechanical manner without hearing the appellants. The impugned order is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score. Whether there was any occasion or necessity to make those observations even if they are to be considered to be observations and not any directions ? - It is not even remotely suggested that there was any deliberate inaction or failure in the matter of discharge of duties by the police. There was no allegation of any subversion of processes of law facilitating the accused to go scot-free nor there is any finding as such recorded by the High Court in its order The power u/s 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court either suo motu or on an application (i) to secure the ends of justice; (ii) the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code; (iii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. There is no other ground on which the High Court may exercise its inherent power. The High Court is not expected to make any casual observations without having any regard to the possible consequences that may ensue from such observations. Observations coming from the higher Courts may have their own effect of influencing the course of events and process of law. For that reason, no uncalled for observations are to be made while disposing of the matters and that too without hearing the persons likely to be affected. The case on hand is itself a classic illustration as to how such observations could result in drastic and consequences of far reaching in nature. We wish to say no more. For the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment of the High Court. Leave granted. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with police investigation.
2. Parameters for High Court's interference in police investigation.
3. Legality of the High Court's directions to the police in the context of the case.
4. Allegations and claims made by the respondent in the petition.
5. Consequences of the High Court's directions on the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with police investigation:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judiciary should not interfere with police investigations, as established in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad and State of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 are meant to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice but should not interfere with statutory police functions.

2. Parameters for High Court's interference in police investigation:
The Court emphasized that judicial interference should be minimal and only in exceptional cases where there is a clear abuse of process or failure of justice. The High Court should not direct the police on how to conduct investigations or mandate specific actions such as arrests or seizures unless there is a compelling reason.

3. Legality of the High Court's directions to the police in the context of the case:
The High Court's directions to the police to expedite the investigation, arrest the accused, and seize property were deemed overstepping judicial boundaries. The Supreme Court held that such directions interfere with the police's discretion and statutory duty. The High Court's order was found to be issued without proper factual foundation or allegations of police inaction or collusion.

4. Allegations and claims made by the respondent in the petition:
The respondent's petition under Section 482 sought the recovery of amounts allegedly due under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the appellants. The Supreme Court noted that the petition resembled a civil suit for money recovery rather than a criminal matter, and the High Court's directions were based on unsubstantiated claims.

5. Consequences of the High Court's directions on the appellants:
The Supreme Court highlighted the harassment faced by the appellants due to the High Court's directions, including being taken into custody and coerced into making payments. The Court criticized the police's role in allegedly settling disputes and emphasized that such actions were beyond their authority.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing that judicial interference in police investigations should be limited and only exercised in exceptional circumstances. The directions issued by the High Court were found to be unwarranted and based on an improper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the separation of functions between the judiciary and the police.