Kedar
Narayan Parida & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa & ANR. [2009] INSC 1593 (16
September 2009)
Judgment
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.19947 OF 2008 Kedar
Narayan Parida & Ors. ...Petitioners State of Orissa & Anr. ...
Respondents
ALTAMAS
KABIR, J.
1.
One Kabita Das, wife of late Bhaguni Das @ Bhagirathi Das of
Village Izapur, District Jajpur in the State of Orissa, addressed a letter to
the Orissa High Court stating that one Kedar Narayan Parida and 19 others,
including his sons, attacked her husband and killed him in the night of
28.3.2007 at about 10.30 p.m. On the basis of a First Information Report,
lodged with the Mangalpur Police Station, Mangalpur P.S. Case No.28 of 2007 was
registered and on the basis of the said police case, G.R.Case No.468 of 2007
was registered in the Court of the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur.
In her said letter, Kabita Das, who has been made the Respondent No.2 in these
proceedings, complained of the fact that though Kedar Narayan Parida was the
main accused in the case, only 3 persons out of the 19 named accused persons,
had been arrested and that the main accused and his sons were moving freely in
the nearby areas and no steps were being taken by the police to apprehend them
or to complete the investigation. In fact, in her said letter, Kabita Das
prayed for a direction to the police authorities to arrest Kedar Narayan Parida
and his sons and to take appropriate steps against them in accordance with law.
2.
The letter written by Kabita Das was registered as Writ Petition
(C) No.12626 of 2007 and on 4th October, 2007, the High Court, after recording
the facts contained in the complaint, also took on record the detailed
instructions which had been received by the Learned Additional Government
Advocate from the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur.
In the
order it was also recorded that the case was under the supervision of one Shri
Niranjan Swain, OPS (I), Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, who,
after examining the witnesses named in the FIR, had come to the conclusion that
a case had been made out against all the 19 accused persons. Even then the
Investigating Officer arrested only 3 of the 19 accused persons, despite the
fact that the polygraph tests performed on the witnesses confirmed the presence
of all the 19 accused persons who had participated in the assault with
different types of weapons. It was also recorded that out of the 19 accused
persons, only 4, namely, Ajaya Kumar Ray @ Kunja, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda
Sahu and Kartika @ Jyotiranjan Sahoo, were charge-sheeted. Charge- sheet had
not been filed against the remaining 15 persons, though directions had been
given by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, to file
charge-sheet against three more persons, namely, Sudhanidhi Sahoo @ Mangua,
Ashish Kumar Ray and Pranaya Kumar Ray.
3.
It appears that despite the conclusion arrived at by the
Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, the Inspector General of Police,
Central Range, Cuttack, intervened in the investigation and came to the
conclusion that the case could be made out only against 7 persons and that the
alleged involvement of the other 12 accused persons named in the FIR needed to
be thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, at the intervention of the said
officer, filing of charge- sheet against the other 12 accused persons was
deferred. The matter was directed to appear on 8.10.2007, on which date the
Inspector General of Police, CR, Cuttack, was directed to appear before the Court
to furnish an explanation as to why he had intervened in the matter and
virtually directed the charge-sheet to be filed only against 7 persons and not
against the remaining 12 accused persons.
4.
The Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, Shri
Santosh Kumar Upadhay, filed a Counter Affidavit stating that the case had been
supervised by Shri Niranjan Swain, OPS-1, Additional Superintendent of Police,
Jajpur, who had found that the allegations against all the accused persons
appeared to be true, and in his supervision note to the Investigating Officer
instructed that after the absconding accused persons had been traced he would
verify the different pleas and alibis taken by them. In his said affidavit, the
Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, further indicated that one
Dr.
Parameswar
Sethi, Member of the Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.), Jajpur, had made a request
for transfer of investigation of the case to the Crime Branch alleging that
persons who were innocent had been roped in. It was also indicated that in that
regard Dr. Sethi had met higher officials which prompted him to direct Shri
Santosh Kumar Upadhay to personally look into the case and to issue a
"Test Note" immediately. In the impugned judgment it has been
recorded that the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, personally
visited the spot on 4.7.2007 along with the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur,
and examined the progress of investigation as also the supervision done by Shri
Niranjan Swain. In his Test Note, the said officer was of the view that out of
the 19 persons named in the FIR direct evidence existed only against Ajaya
Kumar Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu, Pranab Kishore Ray, Sudhanidhi
Sahu @ Mangua, Kartika Sahu and Ashish Ray. The said officer was also of the
view that the involvement of the other 12 accused persons required thorough
investigation.
5.
From the aforesaid affidavit of the Inspector General of Police,
Central Range, Cuttack, it also stands revealed that he had relied upon a letter
dated 23rd June, 2007, addressed to him by the Inspector General of Police,
CID, CB, Orissa, directing him to look into the matter personally and to issue
a Test Note immediately. Accordingly, by an order dated 3rd January, 2008, the
Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, was called upon to file an
affidavit to explain under what provision of law he had made the request for
transfer of investigation on the request of Dr. Parameswar Sethi and as to how
the handwritten note of alibi of the said MLA was passed on to the
Investigating Agency for consideration. In response to the said direction, the
said officer filed a counter affidavit stating that on 6th June, 2006, Dr. Parameswar
Sethi had made a written request for transferring the investigation of the case
to the Crime Branch. The very next day, the Director General of Police, Orissa,
by a written order asked the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, to
take over the investigation of the case immediately. The said officer, however,
inquired into the matter and turned down the request of the MLA seeking
transfer of investigation to the Crime Branch. In fact, in his affidavit, the
said officer indicated that the view of the Additional S.P., Jajpur, who had
supervised the investigation, was correct as far as all the 19 accused were
concerned and that sufficient evidence existed against all the accused persons
of having committed the offence. It was also mentioned that only 3 persons
could be arrested out of the 19 accused persons and that since the remaining 16
were absconding, the investigation of the case could not be completed.
6.
From the impugned judgment it appears that the Division Bench of
the High Court called for the files relating to the investigation and it was
revealed therefrom that the concerned MLA had met the Director General of
Police on 22nd June, 2007, and had handed over a note on his printed pad and in
his own handwriting to the said Officer creating alibis for some of the accused
persons in the case and that the said handwritten note was placed in the file
by the Director General of Police. It also appears that two draft letters were
prepared by the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, pursuant to the
directions of the Director General of Police, with a direction to enclose a
copy of the handwritten note of the MLA, which were, thereafter, sent to the
Inspector General of Police, Central Range, for verification.
7.
On the basis of the aforesaid facts revealed in the affidavit
affirmed by the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, a notice was issued to
the MLA, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, asking him to show cause as to under what
authority he was present during the investigation and had suggested the alibi
of the accused persons.
In his
affidavit, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, tried to justify his conduct on the ground
that he did not want innocent persons to suffer and that he was also not
present at the time of investigation conducted by the Inspector General of
Police, Central Range, and that only on one occasion on being asked by the said
officer, he had gone to his office and had informed him that Jyoti Parida and
Shakti Parida were present at Bhubaneswar in his quarters at the time of the
incident. By a further affidavit directed to be filed, Dr. Parameswar Sethi
indicated that in order to explain the entire matter properly, he had jotted
down the names of the persons who are alleged to have been involved in the
murder case for his own personal reference and that the same was not meant to
be used for the purpose of the investigation.
8.
The submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae before the High
Court, Shri Debasis Panda, who had appeared for the writ petitioner, Kabita
Das, were recorded by the High Court in its judgment and it appears that on
15th May, 2007, a prayer had been made to the Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, (S.D.J.M.), Jajpur, to record the statements of Jaladhar Parida and
Pramod Mahalik, who were said to have witnessed the incident, under Section 164
Cr.P.C. On 18th May, 2007, a similar prayer was made to the S.D.J.M. for
recording the statements of Krushna Chandra Sahu under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On
1st June, 2007, a similar prayer was made for recording the statements of two
other eye-witnesses, Prahllad Mahalik and Bholanath Behera. It was only at this
stage that on 6th June, 2007, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur, wrote to the
Director General of Police, to transfer the investigation of the case to the
Crime Branch, as indicated hereinbefore. By his order dated 7th June, 2007, the
Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, turned down the request of the MLA for
transfer of the investigation to the Crime Branch and on 18th June, 2007, the
Investigating Officer requested the Criminal Court to issue non-bailable
warrants and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against Kedar Parida and his
sons. As soon as such prayer was made, Dr. Parameswar Sethi met the Director
General of Police, followed by an order issued to the Inspector General of
Police, Central Range, directing him to issue his "Test Note".
It
appears that as pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.2, polygraph tests were conducted by the Inspector General of Police,
Central Range, on all the witnesses from whose response nothing deceptive could
be found and there was, therefore, no reason for the said officer to doubt
their statements.
9.
In his Test Note the Inspector General of Police, Central Range,
categorically indicated that in the course of his discussions with Dr.
Parameswar Sethi, he was informed by the MLA that Shakti Parida, who was
alleged to have been present at the time of the incident, was, in fact, in
Bhubaneswar the whole day.
10.
The Division Bench noted Mr. Parida's submission that the
statements made in the affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police,
Central Range, clearly established the fact that Dr. Parameswar Sethi was
directly involved in the investigation process right from 28th March, 2007. The
learned Judges also referred to the affidavit filed by Dr. Parameswar Sethi,
wherein he had asserted that Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present in his
quarters at the time of the incident, although, before the Inspector General of
Police, Central Range, Cuttack, he had stated that Shakti Parida had
telephonically informed him of the events in Bhubaneswar and that he and Jyoti
Parida were present around Bhubaneswar on that date.
The
Division Bench also took note of Mr. Panda's submissions that the second Test
Note was without sanction of law and that it had materialized on account of Dr.
Parameswar Sethi's interference.
11.
The Division Bench also considered the submissions made by Mr.
Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for Dr. Parameswar Sethi, that being a
public representative, the MLA had written a letter on his own pad on 22.6.2007
to the Director General of Police, indicating therein that innocent persons
should not be made to suffer and that the investigation should be entrusted to
the Crime Branch.
The
Division Bench also took note of the other submission made by Mr. Kanungo that
Dr. Parameswar Sethi had visited the office of the Inspector General of Police,
Central Range, Cuttack, only once, on being asked to verify certain facts and
in response thereto he had stated that two of the accused persons, Jyoti Parida
and Shakti Parida were present in his quarters at the time of the incident and
that the hand-written note given by him on his own pad was not for the purpose
of creation of an alibi, but was simply a note for his personal reference.
12.
Upon examination of the materials before it, the Division Bench of
the High Court ultimately framed the following questions for the purpose of
deciding the writ petition :- (a) Whether there is any scope for a second
"Supervision Test Report", even after the original supervision of the
Addl. S.P., Jajpur had been affirmed by all the superior officers, i.e. up to
the rank of D.G. of Police? (b) Veracity of the Test Report issued by the I.G. of
Police, Central Range based upon views and facts that emanate out of apparent
interference by Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur.
13.
While answering the said questions, the Division Bench after
considering the provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that
the filing of charge-sheet against only seven of the accused persons on the
basis of the second Test Report of the Inspector General of Police, Central
Range, could not be supported since the said Test Report had no legal basis.
According to the Division Bench of the High Court, the earlier Supervision Note
of the Additional S.P., Jajpur, which was in consonance with Rule 47-A of the
Orissa Police Manual and affirmed by the Inspector General of Police, C.I.D.,
C.B., as well as the Director General of Police, was sufficient for the purpose
of filing a charge-sheet and there was no justification for the issuance of a further
direction to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, to issue a fresh
"Test Report" and such direction was without any lawful authority. In
fact, the Division Bench went on further to observe that it was apparent that
even in the face of clear prima facie evidence, as stated by witnesses, 12
accused persons were taken out of the purview of the charge-sheet, at the
behest of the MLA, who allegedly provided alibis for them.
It was
also observed that the fact that 12 accused persons had not been examined, went
to prove the clever twist given in the investigation of the case by the
Inspector General of Police, Central Range, to exclude them from the
charge-sheet. The Division Bench, therefore, allowed the writ petition with a
direction to the appropriate authorities to take action against all the accused
persons, according to law, based upon the Supervision Note issued by the
Additional S.P., Jajpur. Consequently, all actions taken on the basis of the
Test Report of the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, were quashed.
Further
directions were given to the Investigating Authority to act in accordance with
the decision of this Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia vs. C.B.I.
[AIR 2008
SC 78] regarding filing of charge-sheet even if the accused persons had not
been arrested. The role played by Dr. Parameswar Sethi in trying to deflect the
course of investigation was strongly disapproved by the Division Bench which
held that the same amounted to interference with the course of justice.
14.
Appearing in support of the Special Leave Petition, learned
counsel, Mr. Amit Sharma, submitted that this Court could be required to
consider as to whether the Investigating Authorities in a case could be
compelled by the Court to investigate an offence in a particular manner as
indicated by the Court and also whether the Court could go into the merits of
the case even before the trial had begun at a stage when investigation was yet
to be concluded. Mr. Sharma also questioned the correctness of the filing of an
additional charge-sheet at the behest of the Court.
15.
In this regard, Mr. Sharma referred to the decision of this Court
in the case of Abhinandan Jha & the provisions of Sections 169, 170, 173
and 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, were under consideration
and it was held that once the Investigating Authorities had submitted report of
the action taken under Section 169 Cr.P.C. that there is no case made out for
sending up the accused for trial, there is no power conferred on a Magistrate, either
expressly or by implication to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet.
Incidentally, the aforesaid provisions of the old Code are the same as those
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
This
Court made a distinction between the power of the Magistrate to direct the
filing of a charge-sheet on the facts disclosed in a report under Section 169
and the power of the Magistrate to disagree with such report and to conduct an
investigation on his own. It was held that in case of disagreement with the
Police Report under Section 169, the Magistrate was within his jurisdiction to
direct the police to conduct a further investigation under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
However,
the Magistrate could not direct the police to submit a charge-sheet because the
submission of the report depended entirely upon the opinion formed by the
police and not on the opinion of the Magistrate.
Mr.
Sharma submitted that the direction given by the learned Magistrate to file an
additional charge-sheet was contrary to the provisions of law and could not,
therefore, be sustained.
16.
Mr. Sharma also referred to a three Judge Bench decision of this
Court in State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa & Anr. [(2002) 3 SCC 89],
wherein, it was observed that while exercising powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Such
power is to be exercised sparingly and ex debito justitiae to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. It was
further observed that the authority of the court exists for the advancement of
justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of
process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and
prevent promotion of justice.
Mr.
Sharma urged that the same was the situation in the instant case where,
although, on the basis of the second Test Note it was found by the Inspector
General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, that a case had been made out only
against seven accused, the High Court observed that the materials contained in
the earlier supervision note of the Additional S.P., Jajpur, which was in
consonance with Rule 42A of the Orissa Police Manual and affirmed by the
Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, as well as the Director General of
Police, was sufficient for the purpose of filing a charge-sheet against all the
accused persons.
Mr.
Sharma urged that there was no bar on receipt of fresh materials for the
Investigating Authorities to hold a further inquiry into the allegations made
in the First Information Report.
17.
Mr. Sharma lastly referred to another decision of this Court in
Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. [(2003) 6 SCC 195], wherein,
while considering amongst other issues the manner and scope of the expression
"investigation" defined in Section 2(h) Cr.P.C., this Court held that
the Magistrate could not interfere with the investigation and by virtue of
Chapter XII of the Code, the manner and method of conducting investigation has
been left entirely to the Police Authorities. It was also held that formation
of opinion whether there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of
suspicion to justify the forwarding of the case to the Magistrate or not as
contemplated by Sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. is to be that of the officer in
charge of the police station and a Magistrate has absolutely no role to play at
this stage. In the said case reference was made to the decision in Abhinandan
Jha's case (supra), wherein, after examining the scheme of the Code and the
decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945
PC 18] and other decisions of this Court, it was, inter alia, held that the
investigation under the Code takes in several aspects and several stages
ultimately resulting in the formation of opinion by the police and such
formation of opinion was the final step in the investigation which could only
be taken by the police and by no other authority.
18.
Mr. Sharma contended that the second Test Note filed by the
Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, was prepared after the
charge-sheet had been filed and not during the investigation on the basis of
orders passed on a writ petition. In support of his submission, Mr. Sharma then
referred to the State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 649], which were
criminal appeals heard along with other criminal appeals involving the same
question as to the extent to which there could be judicial interference with
the discretionary power of the investigating agency. Mr. Sharma pointed out
that this Court held that judicial interference with the discretion of the
Investigating Authority to arrest or not to arrest an accused should not be
exercised mechanically but with caution and when the Investigating Officer,
having regard to the facts, considered arrest of certain persons in a case
unnecessary, the High Court under Article 226 had no jurisdiction to direct the
State to arrest those persons even though the case was still at the stage of
investigation, as that would amount to unjustified interference with the
investigation.
19.
Appearing for Kabita Das, the writ petitioner (Respondent No.2
herein), Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel, opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner and reiterated the stand taken before the High
Court that an attempt had been made by the investigating authorities to derail
the investigation at the instance of Dr. Parameswar Sethi, the local M.L.A. Mr.
Ahmad reiterated that when the previous note of the Additional S.P., Jajpur,
had been affirmed by the Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., C.B., as also the
Director General of Police, there was absolutely no reason for a further Test
Report to be prepared and that too at the instance of the local M.L.A., who had
not only tried to influence the investigation, but had also prevailed upon the
Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, to file a fresh Test
Report giving a clean chit to those accused for whom Dr. Parameswar Sethi had
provided an alibi.
20.
Countering Mr. Amit Sharma's submissions that the Courts do not
ordinarily interfere with the police investigation which is in the domain of
the police authorities, Mr. Altaf Ahmad submitted that the High Courts
exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct a
non-functioning public authority to perform its functions in a particular
manner. In support of his submissions, Mr. Altaf Ahmad referred to and relied
upon the oft-repeated decision of this Court in Comptroller and Auditor-
General of India vs. K.S. Jagannathan [(1986) 2 SCC 679], wherein it was held
in unambiguous terms that the High Courts have the power to issue a writ of
Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or to pass orders and give
necessary directions where the Government or the public authority has failed to
exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute
or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide
or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and
materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such
discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been
conferred. Their Lordships went on to observe that in all such cases and in any
other fit and proper case a High Court can compel the performance in a proper
and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public
authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the
concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which
the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it
properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.
21.
Mr. Altaf Ahmad also submitted that a Magistrate, while
considering a police report made under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., was not bound to
accept the same and could himself take cognizance and issue process. Mr. Ahmad
submitted that the Magistrate was not bound to accept the Test Report submitted
by the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, and was entitled to
take cognizance of the offences on the basis of the earlier report, according
to his discretion. Mr. Ahmad referred to the decision of this Court in H.S.
Bains vs. The State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) [AIR 1980 SC 1883], in
support of his said submission which was rendered on the basis of a report
submitted pursuant to an investigation ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
indicating that no case had been made out. Despite the above, this Court held
that the Magistrate could still take cognizance and issue process if he was
satisfied from the materials on record, including the inquiry report, that a
prima facie case existed against the accused persons.
22.
Mr. Altaf Ahmad submitted that there was absolutely no ground for
interference with the order of the High Court, particularly in the facts of the
instant case.
23.
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel for the State of Orissa,
submitted that the investigating authorities had conducted the investigation
with due diligence and although cognizance had initially been taken against
only 4 of the 19 accused persons, subsequently, cognizance was also taken
against the remaining 15 accused on 2nd July, 2008. Mr. Mishra also submitted
that during the course of investigation, the statements of the eye-witnesses
had been duly recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on 9th July, 2007,
polygraph tests were also conducted in respect of the three witnesses whose statements
had been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in order to test their veracity.
Learned counsel urged that it was not as if the investigating authorities had
remained inactive but had pursued the matter with due diligence ultimately
resulting in process being issued against all the 19 accused. Mr. Mishra also
referred to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in M/s India Carat Pvt.
Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka [AIR 1989 SC 885], which was also on the same
lines.
24.
We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties and we are satisfied that no interference is called for with
the order of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave Petition.
25.
We are unable to accept Mr. Sharma's submissions that the High Court
could not have interfered with the directions given by the Director General of
Police to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, to submit a
fresh Test Note despite the supervisory report which had been submitted by the
Additional S.P., Jajpur, indicating that a case had been made out to go to
trial as against all the 19 accused. When any illegality and/or mala fide
action on the part of the Investigating Authorities, either on its own or at
the behest of an interested party, is brought to the notice of the High Courts,
the High Courts in exercise of their inherent and plenary powers are entitled
to intervene to set right the illegality and/or mala fide action on the part of
the Investigating Authorities. The decision in H.S. Bains's case (supra)
clearly reiterates such proposition.
26.
In the instant case, although, the Supervisory Report submitted by
the Additional SP, Jajpur, had been duly accepted not only by the Inspector
General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, but also by the Director General of
Police, which was sufficient for the Magistrate to frame a charge against all
the accused persons, a fresh direction was given to the Inspector General of
police, Central Range, Cuttack, to submit a Test Note. Such a direction given
after the intervention of Dr. Parameswar Sethi, who has gone to the extent of
providing an alibi for two of the accused, Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida,
claiming that they were present in his house when the incident had occurred,
not only exudes an unpleasant flavour, but raises doubts about the bonafides of
the police authorities at the highest level.
27.
In fact, it is on account of such intervention that initially
charge was filed only against 4 of the accused and, thereafter, 3 more. No
steps were taken as far as the remaining 12 accused were concerned and it is
only when the action of Dr. Parameswar Sethi was questioned before the High
Court, that charge was also filed against the remaining 12 accused persons.
28.
We have considered the judgment of this Court in Abhinandan Jha's
case (supra) and the other cases cited by Mr. Sharma. While indicating that the
courts should not intervene in matters of investigation, which, under the
scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been vested in the Police
Authorities, an exception has also been made that in certain circumstances the
court could intervene in order to do justice to the parties. As we have
observed in other cases, the courts, and in particular the High Courts, are the
guardians of the life and liberty of the citizens and if there is any flavour of
deliberate misuse of the authority vested in the Investigating Authority, the
High Court or this Court may certainly step in to correct such injustice or
failure of justice. Such a view was indicated in the case of Comptroller and
Auditor-General of India's case (supra) as far back in 1986 when on the failure
of the administrative machinery a Mandamus had to be issued by this Court to
grant relief to the petitioner to which he was entitled from the said
authorities, and also in H.S. Bains's case referred to hereinbefore.
29.
We are inclined to agree with Mr. Altaf Ahmad that in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, it was necessary for such a direction to
be given by the High Court in order to prevent an injustice from being done on
account of the intervention of influential persons, which not only had the
effect of negating the Supervisory Report of the Additional SP, Jajpur, but
also resulted in an attempt to shield some of the accused persons.
30.
The judgment of the High Court, in our view, does not warrant any
interference and the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
31.
There shall be no order as to costs.
................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)
...................................................J. (CYRIAC
JOSEPH)
New Delhi
Dated : 16.09.2009.
Back