2009 (4) TMI 1056 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's directions for bail and exemption from personal appearance.
2. Validity of further investigation by CBCID after the final report.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Allegations of mala fide and retaliatory FIRs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the High Court's Directions for Bail and Exemption from Personal Appearance:
The High Court's directions for bail and exemption from personal appearance were challenged. It was contended that the High Court committed a serious error by issuing such directions without a formal application for bail. The Supreme Court noted that the jurisdiction to exempt the accused from personal appearance lies within the domain of the learned Magistrate. The High Court's directions for granting bail and exemption from personal appearance were deemed inappropriate and beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that these matters should be left for the learned Magistrate to decide in a fair and judicious manner.

2. Validity of Further Investigation by CBCID After the Final Report:
The issue of further investigation by CBCID after the final report was scrutinized. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the investigation in the connected matter had been extensive, with final reports prepared twice. It was noted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, sought the opinion of the public prosecutor, which although irregular, was not disputed by the appellants. The Court highlighted that the police have the power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, even after the court has taken cognizance of the offence. The Court cited precedents affirming the police's right to further investigate when fresh information comes to light, provided they inform the court and seek formal permission.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The Supreme Court reiterated that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC is limited and should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The High Court's interference in the trial process was deemed inappropriate, as it overlooked procedural law and intervened at an uncalled-for stage. The Supreme Court emphasized that inherent powers should not be invoked if there is a specific provision in the Code for redressal. The High Court's order directing further investigation and issuing directions for bail and exemption from personal appearance was set aside, and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

4. Allegations of Mala Fide and Retaliatory FIRs:
The Supreme Court observed that both parties had lodged FIRs against each other, indicating a dispute related to a farm house. The Court noted that the investigation had run from one extreme to the other, with final reports prepared twice. It was highlighted that the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, did not find the final report to be conclusive. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider the allegations of mala fide and retaliatory FIRs afresh and pass appropriate interim orders as necessary. The interim order passed by the Supreme Court was directed to continue for four weeks.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's directions for bail and exemption from personal appearance, remitting the matters for fresh consideration. The Court affirmed the police's power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC and emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. The allegations of mala fide and retaliatory FIRs were directed to be reconsidered by the High Court. The appeals were disposed of to the aforementioned extent.