Lourdumary vs State and Others

A.K. Rajan, J.—These petitions, though the prayers are worded differently, in effect it is to investigate the case and to register the complaint.

These petitions are filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C. As per the Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. S.N. Basak, and Hazari Lal

Gupta Vs. Rameshwar Prasad and Another, etc., , it has been held that the statutory right of Police to carry on investigation into cognizable offence

cannot be interfered with under Sections 401 and 482 before launching prosecution. Interference with such investigation would be impeding

investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise the power in accordance with Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court held so in these two cases following its earlier decision in R.P. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab, , held that:

The High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then, be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities

to exercise powers in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The High Court was correct in dismissing the application filed u/s 561(A) of

the Cr.P.C.

In State v. Bajanlal, AIR 1982 SC 604, the Supreme Court has held that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the

domain of investigating agencies over which the Court cannot have control so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions

relating to investigation.

In Union of India and another Vs. W.N. Chadha, , it was held that ""a Division Bench of the High Court not only injuncted the appellant from

arresting the respondent, but also fixed time and place for carrying out his interrogations, such kind of supervision on the enquiry or investigation

under the statute is uncalled for.

In State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs. Anil Sharma, , it was held that ""the functions of the judiciary, and the police are complementary, not overlapping

and the Court''s functions begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then"".

In State of Bihar and Another Vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, , the Supreme Court has held that ""without compelling and justifiable reasons

the Court should not interfere with the investigation which is still on its way. According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the formation of opinion

as to whether or not there is a case to place the accused for trial is that of the police officer making the investigation and the final step in

Investigation is to be taken only by the police and by no other authority.

The Supreme Court in Eastern Spinning Mills and Virendra Kumar Sharda and Another Vs. Rajiv Poddar and Others, , has held that ""Save in

exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage

of police investigation"".

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shushil Kumar Modi, AIR 1997 SCW 725, has held that ""if during the investigation under Chapter XII of

the Code, the police are found to be not performing their duty by conducting an honest, objective and speedy investigation, then, at that stage the

aggrieved party can use the mandamus procedure by moving the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to see that the police perform

their duty objectively"".

From the above decisions, it is clear that this Court cannot interfere while exercising the power conferred u/s 482, Cr.P.C. to direct the

investigation of a case. It is purely the domain of the police. Only in cases where the police are found to be not performing their duty in honest and

objective manner, the aggrieved party can approach the Court that too only under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and not by resorting to

the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C.

In as much as, these petitions are filed u/s 482, Cr.P.C, these petitions are not maintainable and hence they are dismissed.