9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to interfere with police investigation. 2. The power of the High Court to stay arrest during investigation. 3. The correctness of the decision in the case of Puttan Singh v. State of U.P. Detailed Analysis: 1. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to interfere with police investigation: The judgment extensively discusses the statutory function of the police to investigate cognizable offences without interference from the judiciary. It cites several precedents, including Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad, where it was held that the judiciary should not interfere with police investigations. The judgment reiterates that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are not to be exercised to quash investigations, as this would impede the statutory rights of the police. The judgment emphasizes that the judiciary and police functions are complementary, not overlapping, and interference is only justified in the rarest of rare cases. The High Court's inherent powers come into play only after a charge-sheet is filed in court. 2. The power of the High Court to stay arrest during investigation: The judgment clarifies that under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the High Court does not have the inherent power to stay the arrest of an accused during an investigation. It references Section 41(1)(a) Cr. P.C., which confers power on a police officer to arrest a person involved in a cognizable offence. The judgment asserts that this statutory power cannot be interfered with by the High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers. If the High Court is convinced that the power of arrest will be exercised wrongly or mala fide, it can issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution, but not under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 3. The correctness of the decision in the case of Puttan Singh v. State of U.P.: The judgment affirms that the decision in Puttan Singh v. State of U.P. was correctly decided, stating that the police have statutory power under Section 156 Cr. P.C. to investigate cases without interference from the High Court in its inherent powers. The judgment concludes that the High Court has no jurisdiction to direct a police officer not to arrest an applicant during the pendency of an investigation if the first information report discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Conclusion: (i) The answers to the questions referred to the Full Bench in the case of Prashant Gaur v. State of U.P. are not in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Privy Council. (ii) The High Court has no inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to interfere with police investigations or to stay the arrest of an accused during investigation. The decision by the Full Bench in the case of Prashant Gaur v. State of U.P. does not lay down the correct law and is overruled. (iii) The decision in the case of Puttan Singh v. State of U.P. was correctly decided. The record of the cases is to be placed before the learned single Judge with the answers provided.
|
