Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1504 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008)
T. C. Thangaraj ...... Appellant
Versus
V. Engammal & Ors. ......
Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1505 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008)
P. Suganthi & Anr. ...... Appellants
Versus
V. Engammal & Ors. ......
Respondents
J U D G M E N T
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1589 of 2008.
2. Leave granted.
3. These are two appeals against the order dated
26.10.2007 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in
2
Criminal Original Petition No.10987 of 2007 directing that
investigation into the case registered as Crime No.14 of
2006 with the District Crime Branch (DCB), Virudunagar,
be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai (for short `the CBI').
4. The facts briefly are that on 04.08.2006 a complaint
was submitted by V. Engammal, who has been impleaded
as a respondent in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to
as `the complainant'), to the Superintendent of Police,
Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant made
following allegations in the complaint: P. Kalaikathiravan,
appellant no.2 in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 1589 of 2008, who was the then S.I. of Town Police
Station, told her and her husband that he was going to do
the business of real estate and that they should become
partners in the business but they told him that the
business will not work and thereafter he asked them to give
a loan of Rs.3 lakh and they handed over Rs.3 lakh to his
wife P. Suganthi, appellant no.1 in criminal appeal arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008. P. Kalaikathiravan then
introduced T.C. Thangaraj, the appellant in criminal appeal
3
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008, and one
Nagendran who were doing real estate business. When P.
Kalaikathiravan was transferred to Sethur Krishnapuram,
the complainant and her husband demanded repayment of
Rs.3 lakh, but P. Kalaikathiravan asked them to collect the
money from T.C. Thangaraj. T.C. Thangaraj accepted the
liability and gave two cheques dated 30.01.2004 and
04.02.2004 each of Rs.50,000/-, but the cheques were
returned with remarks from the bank that there were no
sufficient funds in the accounts. After P. Kalaikathiravan
came back to Virudunagar on promotion as Inspector, her
husband went to him many times and demanded money but
he refused to pay the same and sent him away. In the
complaint, the complainant requested the Superintendent of
Police to initiate action against the Inspector, P.
Kalaikathiravan, his wife P. Suganthi and T.C. Thangaraj,
who had cheated the complainant and her husband. The
Superintendent of Police sent the complaint to the Office In-
charge of DCB, Police Station Virudunagar, on 04.08.2006
and the complaint was registered as Crime No.14 of 2006
under Sections 409, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of the
4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `the IPC').
5. When there was no progress in the investigation on the
complaint, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.8782 of 2006
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(for short `the Cr.P.C.') before the Madras High Court,
Madurai Bench, with a prayer to entrust the case to the CBI
for proper investigation. The High Court in its order dated
13.04.2007 noticed that the case is against a police officer
and the grievance of the complainant was that the police
department was not taking interest in pursuing the matter.
The High Court, however, found that the matter was before
the Judicial Magistrate and disposed of the petition giving
liberty to the complainant to appear before the Judicial
Magistrate concerned and file, if necessary, a protest
petition if the case has been treated as a mistake of fact.
The High Court further directed that the Judicial Magistrate
shall consider the protest petition of the respondent keeping
in mind the seriousness of the allegations made in the
complaint as well as in the affidavit filed before the High
Court.
5
6. Thereafter, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.10987 of
2007 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the Madras High
Court, Madurai Bench, reiterating her prayer to entrust
Crime No.14 of 2006 to the CBI for proper investigation.
The High Court in the impugned order dated 16.10.2007
took note of the fact that the complainant had received back
the sum of Rs.3 lakh in question and given a receipt dated
05.08.2006 but she had a grievance that her complaint had
not been properly investigated and the investigating agency
should file a final report in accordance with law. However,
the High Court after perusing the entire case diary found
that some witnesses have been examined but the
investigation had been stopped suddenly on the ground that
the complainant had received back the sum of Rs.3 lakh on
05.08.2006. The High Court held in the impugned order
that even though the amount in question had been received
back by the complainant, the investigating agency ought to
have conducted proper investigation and filed a final report
in accordance with law, but the investigating agency had
failed to do it. The High Court further held that as the
accused No.1 was an Inspector of Police, the investigating
6
agency has not done its duty properly and under the
circumstances, relief claimed by the complainant should be
granted and accordingly ordered that Crime No.14 of 2006
be entrusted to the CBI for investigation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order that
the accused No.1 was an Inspector of Police and therefore
the investigating agency has not done its duty properly,
have not been held to be good reasons for entrusting the
investigation to the CBI by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. [(2010) 3
SCC 571].
8. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other
hand, cited a decision of two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors. reported in
(2006) 2 SCC 677, in which this Court directed the CBI to
register a case and investigate into the complaint of the
appellant because the complaint was against the police
officer and the Court was of the view that the interest of
7
justice would be better served if the case is registered and
investigated by an independent agency like the CBI.
9. The decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors. (supra) will
have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West
Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (supra). The Constitution Bench
has considered at length the power of the High Court to
direct investigation by the CBI into a cognizable offence
alleged to have been committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of a State and while taking the view that the
High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution cautioned that the Courts must bear in mind
certain self-imposed limitations. Para 70 of the opinion of
the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal & Ors. v.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal &
Ors. (supra) is extracted hereinbelow :
"Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers
conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts
must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations
8
on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The
very plenitude of the power under the said articles
requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as
the question of issuing a direction to CBI to
conduct investigation in a case is concerned,
although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down
to decide whether or not such power should be
exercised but time and again it has been reiterated
that such an order is not to be passed as a matter
of routine or merely because a party has levelled
some allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,
cautiously and in exceptional situations where it
becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil
confidence in investigations or where the incident
may have national and international ramifications
or where such an order may be necessary for doing
complete justice and enforcing the fundamental
rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a
large number of cases and with limited resources,
may find it difficult to properly investigate even
serious cases and in the process lose its credibility
and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."
[Emphasis supplied]
10. It will be clear from the opinion of the Constitution
Bench quoted above that the power of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct
investigation by the CBI is to be exercised only
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations
and an order directing to CBI is not to be passed as a
matter of routine or merely because a party has
levelled some allegations against the local police. In
9
the impugned order, the High Court has not exercised
its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution and directed the CBI to investigate into
the complaint with a view to protect her personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution or to
enforce her fundamental right guaranteed by Part-III
of the Constitution. The High Court has exercised its
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a grievance made
by the complainant that her complaint that she was
cheated in a loan transaction of Rs.3 lakh by the three
accused persons, was not being investigated properly
because one of the accused persons is an Inspector of
Police. In our considered view, this was not one of
those exceptional situations calling for exercise of
extra-ordinary power of the High Court to direct
investigation into the complaint by the CBI. If the
High Court found that the investigation was not being
completed because P. Kalaikathiravan, an Inspector of
Police, was one of the accused persons, the High
Court should have directed the Superintendent of
Police to entrust the investigation to an officer senior
1
in rank to the Inspector of Police under Section 154(3)
Cr.P.C. and not to the CBI. It should also be noted
that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police
performing their duties and where the Magistrate
finds that the police have not done their duty or not
investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the Police to
carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor
the same. (see Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. -
(2008) 2 SCC 409).
11. For these reasons, we quash the impugned order of
the High Court and direct that the Superintend of
Police, Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu, will entrust
the investigation of Crime No. 14 of 2006 to a police
officer senior in rank to P. Kalaikathiravan. The
appeals are accordingly allowed.
..........................J.
(R.V.
Raveendran)
..........................J.
(A. K.
Patnaik)
New Delhi,
July 29, 2011.
1
