M.V. Mahesh Kumar vs T. Saravanan

P. Devadass, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as against the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Krishnagiri for disobeying this court''s order, dated 7.10.2013.

Petitioner filed the petition in Crl. O.P. No. 24604 of 2013 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent to register a case based on his complaint, dated 5.7.2013 and investigate.

On 7.10.2013 upon hearing both, this court passed the following order:

Mahesh Kumar, the petitioner seeks direction to register a case based on his complaint dated 05.07.2013 and investigate the same in accordance with law.

Heard both sides.

Perused the allegations in the complaint and the averments in the petition.

There was sale agreement between the petitioner, namely, Mahesh Kumar and Susaiammal alongwith others with regard to an immovable property. With regard to that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 27 of 2007 for specific performance and the same was decreed in his favour.

Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither in the written statement nor any part of the pleadings, there is nothing as to a prior sale agreement. Petitioner came to know that a document was brought into existence subsequently on practicing forgery.

In the circumstances, the first respondent, namely, the Inspector of Police, Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cell, Office of the District Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri District, is directed to enquire the complaint of the petitioner dated 05.07.2013. If any cognizable offence is there, he shall register the case and proceed further in accordance with law.

With the above directions, the criminal original petition is disposed of.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, actually no enquiry has been conducted. In such circumstances, Court can question as to whether the order of the court is complied with or not. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited Niaz Mohammad and others, etc. etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, .

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the order of this court, dated 7.10.2013, there was no positive direction to police to register a case. Actually, direction was to enquire the complaint and if there is any cognizable offence, then, register a case and proceed further in accordance with law.

The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Investigation Officer enquired the matter and found that it is only a civil matter. Accordingly, he has drawn up a report. A copy of the same also has been given to the complainant. There is no contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent. No violation of the court order much less deliberate or wilful disobedience to Court order.

As early as in 1945 in AIR 1945 18 (Privy Council) Lord Justice Porter held that in India, the process of investigation is the province of police. Court can interfere if the police proceeds in a matter which does not disclose any cognizable offence or exercise power in breach of any statutory rules and regulations. This has also been reiterated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, . This also has been recently reiterated by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., .

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a procedure to investigate a criminal case has been chalked out in Sec. 156 and 157 Cr.P.C. Investigation Officer gets the power of investigation u/s 156 and 157 Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, namely, collection of evidence (See section 2(h), the investigation officer files his (final) report with his opinion thereon as to the commission of offence/s. (See section 173 Cr.P.C.) Thereafter, investigation comes to an end. Thereafter, the work of the Court begins, namely, taking cognizance thereon (See section 190 Cr.P.C.). The area between section 154 Cr.P.C. and Section 173 Cr.P.C. is available to the Investigation officer.

u/s 482 Cr.P.C., no new power is given to the High Courts. It reiterates its power ''to do justice and undo injustice''. It is ''Ex debitio justicio''.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. has three dimensions. They are; (i) to implement orders passed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, (ii) to prevent abuse of process of any court and (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

In exercise of the inherent power, on 7.10.2013 this court directed to the investigation officer to enquire the matter, if it discloses any cognizable offence then proceed further in accordance with law, that is to say, register a case and investigate.

As regards a negative police report, what the court has to do has been laid down long back in Abhinandan Jha and Others Vs. Dinesh Mishra, .

A Police officer has power to investigate a cognizable case either based on the complaint lodged u/s 154 Cr.P.C. or on source information u/s 156(1) Cr.P.C. or on a direction issued by this Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 Constitution of India. When a Police officer fails to discharge his duty, this Court can direct him to register a case if there is cognizable offence. If there is ''mistake of fact'' or ''accidental fire'' or ''civil matter'', ''no cognizable offence'', he is bound to report accordingly to the court.

''Enquiry'' is intended to find out whether ''the complaint/petition disclose any cognizable offence. If it is, then F.I.R. has to be registered under Sec. 154 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter investigation comes. This enquiry is called preliminary enquiry. (P.E.).

Recently, in Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. and Others (supra), the Hon''ble Constitutional Bench advocated conducting of such preliminary enquiries in certain cases, namely, civil matters, matrimonial matters, commercial matters and vigilance cases.

In this case, on 7.10.2013, this court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction thought it fit to direct the respondent to enquire the matter and find out if there is any cognizable offence.

In obedience to the order of this court, the Investigation Officer enquired the matter and it revealed only a civil dispute. Court cannot take the role of an Investigation Officer. If the de facto complainant is not satisfied with the way, the method of enquiry and the conclusion arrived at by the police, it is not that he has no remedy. The report given by the Police officer will not be a biblical verse. The complainant can ignore the report and file a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. After enquiry, if there is a prima facie case, the learned Magistrate is bound to issue summons to the accused u/s 204 Cr.P.C.

So far as this case is concerned, only a limited role has been given to the Investigation Officer namely, enquire whether it discloses a cognizable offence or not. According to the investigation officer, it disclosed only a civil matter. It is a negative report. Thereafter, it is left to the complainant to pursue the remedy available to him in law.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent.

In the result, this petition is closed.