http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 21  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  472 of 2008

PETITIONER: Divine Retreat Centre

RESPONDENT: State of Kerala & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2008

BENCH: S.H. KAPADIA & B. SUDERSHAN REDDY

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2234 of 2007)      B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.       1.              Leave granted.

2.              What is the scope, content and ambit of the  inherent power conferred on the High Court under Section 482  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, \023the Code\024)  is the central question that falls for our consideration in this  appeal.  

3.              The relevant facts, giving rise to this appeal, have  been set out  in the impugned judgment of the High Court but  they have to be recapitulated in order to enable us to give our  reasons for the findings which we will be arriving at on the  interpretation.

4.              This appeal by grant of special leave is directed by  Divine Retreat Centre assailing the judgment and order dated  10.3.2006 of the High Court of Kerala rendered in Criminal  M.C. No. 405 of 2006, directing investigation of Crime No. 381  of 2005 of Koratty Police Station to be taken away from the  Investigating Officer and entrusting the same to a Special  Investigation Team headed by Vinson M. Paul, I.P.S. Inspector  General of Police, presently working as Managing Director of  Kerala Police Housing Construction Corporation,  Thiruvananthapuram.  The High Court also directed the same  authority to investigate/inquire into various other allegations  leveled in an anonymous petition filed against Divine Retreat  Centre.  The impugned judgment and order arises out of the  proceedings suo motu initiated by the Court on the basis of  anonymous petition addressed to Justice Padmanabhan Nair.  

5.              The tell-tale facts disclosed from the record may  have to be noted in some detail.  One Mini Varghese, a female  remand prisoner, sent a petition to the District Judge,  Kozhikode, inter alia, alleging that while she was taking  shelter in Divine Retreat Centre she had been subjected to  molestation and exploitation and became pregnant from  Father Jose Thadathil (later identified as Father Mathew  Thadathil).  When she came out of Centre  to attend her  sister\022s marriage she was implicated in a false theft case and  lodged in the jail.  

6.      The District Judge having received the petition on  28.7.2005 forwarded the same to the concerned Magistrate on  9.8.2005 to do the needful.  The Judicial Magistrate First

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 21  

Class, Koyilandi recorded the statement of the victim on  11.8.2005 and thereafter the matter was transferred to the  Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chalakuddy.  The learned  Magistrate having received the records ordered investigation.   A case was registered in Crime No. 381 of 2005 under Section  376(g) I.P.C. at Koratty Police Station.        7.      For whatever reasons, the District Judge sent a copy of  the petition received by him to the  Registrar of Kerala High  Court which was placed before Thankappan, J.  who in turn  directed complaint to be forwarded to the Superintendent of  Police, Thrissur to cause an inquiry and if necessary to  register a case and report to the Court.  The Superintendent of  Police as well as the Circle Inspector of Police (Investigating  Officer) submitted their reports duly informing the Registry  that a case has already been registered and was being  investigated.   

8.      On 28.10.2005, District Judge, Kozhikode, addressed a  letter to the Registrar General, High Court of Kerala enclosing  anonymous Petition dated 26.10.2005 received by him  addressed to Justice K. Padmanabhan Nair.  The Petition was  accompanied by photocopies of certain press reports and three  Video C.Ds.  In his covering letter, the District Judge referred  to the facts leading to the registration of Crime No. 381 of  2005 on the file of Koratty Police Station on 31.8.2005 under  Section 376(g) I.P.C. and further stated: \023In the meantime, Smt. Mini Varghese  delivered.  The Local Police, while arresting her  in connection with a theft case had seized a  mobile phone from her.  The police produced  that mobile phone in the J.F.M.C., Koyilandy.   That mobile phone was forwarded to the J.F.M.  Chalakuddy for investigation as the concerned  priest was said to have made several calls to  the lady in that mobile phone.  Later, I  happened to see some press reports (I am  enclosed the 3rd page of the N.I.E. dt. 13.10.05  which carried a report, \021DNA Test? Oh No\022) to  the effect that the police is not properly  investigating the case and instead, are more  interested in tracing her antecedents and  alleged bad character.  They did not reportedly  collect the details of calls to the mobile phone  seized from the lady, which would have given  some clue regarding the alleged connection.   Nor did they attempt a DNA test.  The lady had  complained to me that she is afraid to come  out of the jail on bail as she is under threat.  I  do not know what is the present stage of the  investigation.\024

9.              The matter was accordingly placed before  Padmanabhan Nair, J. by the Registry who in turn directed  the matter to be placed before the Registrar General for  necessary action by his endorsement dated 21.12.2005.   

10.             The matter was accordingly placed before  Padmanabhan Nair, J. on 24.1.2006 by the Registry in the  following manner:

\023Shri Thomas P. Joseph, District Judge,  Kozhikode has sent a communication dated  28.10.2005, enclosing a complaint addressed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 21  

to the Hon\022ble Mr. Justice K. Padmanabhan  Nair.  The communication of the learned  District Judge and the complaint are self- explanatory.

If any steps are to be taken with regard to the  matter may kindly be indicated.\024

The learned judge on the same day made the following  endorsement: \023Please verify and report whether the FPR Mini  Varghese had sent any petition to this Court  and if so what action was taken on that  petition?\024

Thereafter the Registry re-submitted the whole file before  Padmanabhan Nair, J as under:      \023It appears that Smt. Mini Varghese, FRP  287, District Jail, Kozhikode had sent a  complaint to the Hon\022ble High Court, narrating  her agonies.  The matter was placed before the  Hon\022ble Mr. Justice K. Thankappan, since His  Lordship was dealing with the petitions sent  from jail.  As per the order of the Hon\022ble  Judge, the petition was sent to the  Superintendent of Police, Thrissur for an  enquiry and if found necessary, to register a  case. It was also directed that the  Superintendent of Police would file a report  before this Court within a reasonable time.  

    Presumably, in pursuance of the said  direction, it appears that Crime No. 381/2005  under Sec. 376(g) of the IPC was registered in  the Koratty Police Station on 31.08.2005.

    When the above matter was reported to  this Court, the Hon\022ble Judge, as per His  Lordship\022s order dated 22.12.2005 directed  that the matter be closed.

                       The entire file is submitted.\024

On re-submission of the file, the learned judge passed the  following order on 8.2.2006 thus:

    \023I have carefully gone through  Anonymous petition and the documents  endorsed along with.  One of the documents  enclosed alongwith the petition is a petition  submitted by FPR 287, Mini Varghese raising  an allegation of rape against the head of the  Divine Centre Muringoor  Rw. Fr. Mathew  Thadathil.  Of course in the petition she had  given the name as Jose Thadthil but there is  no room for any doubt regarding the identity of  the person.

It is seen that this court had forwarded the  petition received from Smt. Mini Varghese to  the Suptd. Of Police TCR for necessary action  on 7-9-05.  The Suptd. Of Police had filed a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 21  

statement on 5-11-05 to the effect that a  Crime as Case No.381 of 2005 at Koratthy  Police Station u/s 376(g) of I.P. Code is  registered and the same is being investigated  by the C I of Police Chalakkudy. The CI of  Chalakkudy had also submitted a similar  statement on 31-10-05.

It is seen that on 8-11-05 the report of the CI  was brought to the notice of the Hon\022ble Judge  who was dealing with the petition received  from jail.  He passed an order on 22-12-05 to  close the file.

In the meanwhile another petition is seen  received from the FPR 287.  That petition was  forwarded to this court on 11-11-05 and  received in this court only on 21-11-05.  The  Registry had noted  that the file was  already  put up to KT(J) and the petition was to be  incorporated in the file.

In the above said the FPR 287 had raised  serious allegation regarding the investigation.   It is  stated that two police men went to the jail  but they did not make enquiry regarding her  allegation of rape alleged against the priest.    Even though there is an order to close the file  Crl.PP 57929/05.  I am of the view that  subsequent petition  ought to have treated a  separate petition praying for an order for  proper investigation and separate action taken.  I am of the view that petition can also be  clubbed with the anonymous petition.

A perusal of the anonymous petition dated 26- 10-05 shows it contains serious allegation.  So  it is only just and proper the matter is taken  on the judicial side especially in view of the  allegation of involvement of senior IAS and IPS  officers.

So there will be direction to the Registry to  treat the anonymous petition alongwith  petition of FPR 287 received in the court on  21-11-05  as petitions praying for an order for  proper investigation and Register as a suo  motu Crl. Misc. Case.  Serve a copy of the  above stated petition to the Director General of  Prosecution.  The copies of the documents   except the CDs may also be given to him.   Keep the CD under safe custody for the time  being till a decision is taken in the matter.

Register the Crl. Misc. Case and post for  admission.\024                

11.             Be it noted that the complaint/Petition dated  27.10.2005 received from Mini Varghese  by the Registry on  21.11.2005 was placed in the same file based on which  Thankappan, J initially ordered an inquiry.  Thereafter the  entire matter was placed before Thankappan, J on 22.12.2005   itself and the learned Judge directed the closure of the matter  thus:   \023No further probe is necessary.  Close the file.\024 This  fact was also brought to the notice of Padmanabhan Nair, J.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 21  

 12.             However, the learned Judge was of the view that the  subsequent petition sent by Mini Varghese  dated 27.10.2005  ought to have been treated as a separate petition praying for  an order for proper investigation.  The learned Judge was  also  of the view that the said petition  was required to be clubbed  with the anonymous petition.

13.             The Registry in compliance with the directions so  issued by the learned judge promptly registered a case in  Criminal M.C. No. 405 of 2006 under Section 482 of the Code  in which the persons against whom accusations were made  have been duly impleaded as the respondents. The matter was  listed for admission in the court on 10.2.2006 and was  adjourned to 15.2.2006 for serving a notice upon the learned  Director General of Prosecution (Public Prosecutor). The  learned Judge heard the matter and reserved the case for  order. The impugned order was passed on 10.3.2006.   

SUBMISSIONS:

14.             The validity of  the said order is impugned in this  appeal on various grounds.  Shri Anil B. Divan, learned Senior  Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted   that  the whole procedure adopted to entertain and initiate  proceedings culminating in passing the impugned order  suffers from incurable procedural and substantive infirmities  rendering the order void. It was further contended  that the  impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction.  The  jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code is  not available to order investigation into any case by the police.   The learned senior counsel  proceeded to contend that the  directions issued by the High Court could not have been  issued even in a public interest litigation  under Article 226 of  the Constitution of India.  On merits, the learned senior  counsel submitted that neither the complaint of the victim nor  the anonymous petition discloses any irregularity in the  matter of investigation.   The directions issued by the learned  Judge are inquisitorial in nature and sweeping in their width  and amplitude directing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to  find out as to whether the appellant committed any crime and  if so to investigate into such crime. Such a course is  impermissible in law.   

15.             Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel  appearing on  behalf of the respondents supported the impugned order.  It  was submitted that there are no limits imposed in the matter  of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code so  long as the directions do not run counter to statutory  provisions.  It was alternatively contended that if for any  reason the impugned order is not traceable to Section 482 of  the Code the same could be considered as the one passed by  the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.   It was also submitted that the appellant has no locus to  challenge the impugned order inasmuch as it is not an  accused in any criminal case.  It was also contended that even  the accused in a criminal case has no right of hearing until  filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code.  

NATURE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 482 OF  CODE  QUA THE REGISTRATION OF A CRIME  AND  INVESTIGATION:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 21  

16.             The well defined and demarcated functions in the  field of crime detection by the police and its subsequent  adjudication  by the Courts   is so well known and had been  recognized way back in Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad .   The Privy Council observed that just as it is essential that  every one accused of a crime should have free access to a  Court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not  guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the  utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with  the police in matters which are within their province and into  which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry.   It is  held:

\023In India as has been shown there is a  statutory right on the part of the police to  investigate the circumstances of an alleged  cognizable crime without requiring any  authority from the judicial authorities, and it  would, as their Lordships think, be an  unfortunate result if it should be held possible  to interfere with those statutory rights by an  exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.   The functions of the judiciary and the police are  complementary not overlapping and the  combination of individual liberty with a due  observance of law and order is only to be  obtained by leaving each to exercise its own  function, always, of course, subject to the right  of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case  when moved under S. 491, Criminal P.C., to  give directions in the nature of habeas corpus.   In such a case as the present, however, the  Court\022s functions begin when a charge is  preferred before it and not until then.  It has  sometimes been thought that S. 561A has given  increased powers to the Court which it did not  possess before that section was enacted.  But  this is not so.  The section gives no new powers,  it only provides that those which the Court  already inherently possess shall be preserved  and is inserted, as their Lordships think, lest it  should be considered that the only powers  possessed by the Court are those expressly  conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code, and  that no inherent power had survived the  passing of that Act.\024 (emphasis supplied)

17.             In S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & ors. ,  this Court took the view that there is no mention of any power  to stop an investigation by the police.  The power of the police  to investigate any cognizable offence is uncontrolled by the  Magistrate, and it is only in cases where the police decide not  to investigate the case, the Magistrate can intervene and either  direct an investigation, or, in the alternative, himself proceed  or depute a Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to  enquire into the case.  \023The power of the police to investigate  has been made independent of any control by the Magistrate.\024   It is further held:

\023though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to  the police unfettered power to investigate all  cases where they suspect that a cognizable  offence has been committed, in appropriate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 21  

cases an aggrieved person can always seek a  remedy by invoking the power of the High Court  under Article 226 of the Constitution under  which, if the High Court could be convinced that  the power of investigation has been exercised  by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can  always issue a writ of mandamus restraining  the police officer from misusing his legal  powers.\024

This position has been made further clear by this Court in its  authoritative pronouncement in State of Bihar & anr. Vs.  J.A.C. Saldanha & ors.  thus:

\02325. There is a clear-cut and well demarcated  sphere of activity in the field of crime detection  and crime punishment. Investigation of an  offence is the field exclusively reserved for the  executive through the police department the  superintendence over which vests in the State  Government. The executive which is charged  with a duty to keep vigilance over law and  order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if  an offence is alleged to have been committed it  is its bounden duty to investigate into the  offence and bring the offender to book. Once it  investigates and finds an offence having been  committed it is its duty to collect evidence for  the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is  completed and the investigating officer submits  report to the Court requesting the Court to take  cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of  the Code its duty comes to an end. On a  cognizance of the offence being taken by the  Court the police function of investigation comes  to an end subject to the provision contained in  Section 173(8), there commences the  adjudicatory function of the judiciary to  determine whether an offence has been  committed and if so, whether by the person or  persons charged with the crime by the police in  its report to the Court, and to award adequate  punishment according to law for the offence  proved to the satisfaction of the Court. There is  thus a well defined and well demarcated  function in the field of crime detection and its  subsequent adjudication between the police and  the Magistrate. This has been recognised way  back in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir  Ahmad\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005  \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005 \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005 pp26. This view of the Judicial Committee  clearly demarcates the functions of the  executive and the judiciary in the field of  detection of crime and its subsequent trial and  it would appear that the power of the police to  investigate into a cognizable offence is  ordinarily not to be interfered with by the  judiciary.\024 (emphasis is of ours)

18.             The observations of this Court in M.C. Abraham &  Anr.Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.  in this regard deserve  to be noticed.  In the said case it was held:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 21  

\023The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is  for the investigating agency to submit a report  to the Magistrate after full and complete  investigation. The Investigating agency may  submit a report finding the allegations  substantiated. It is also open to the  investigating agency to submit a report finding  no material to support the allegations made in  the first information report. It is open to the  Magistrate concerned to accept the report or to  order further enquiry. But what is clear is that  the Magistrate cannot direct the investigating  agency to submit a report that is in accord with  his views. Even in a case where a report is  submitted by the investigating agency finding  that no case is made out for prosecution, it is  open to the Magistrate to disagree with the  report and to take cognizance, but what he  cannot do is to direct the investigating agency to  submit a report to the effect that the allegations  have been supported by the material collected  during the course of investigation.\024

19.             In State of West Bengal Vs. S.N. Basak , this  Court reiterated the principle that the police has statutory  right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged  cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate and  that power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered  with by the exercise of power under the inherent power of the  High Court.  In Hazari Lal Gupta Vs. Rameshwar Prasad &  Anr. Etc. , this Court while explaining the nature and purport  of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court observed that in  exercising jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Criminal  Procedure Code, 1898, the High Court can quash proceedings  if there is no legal evidence or if there is any impediment to the  institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court  does not ordinarily enquire as to whether the evidence is  \021reliable or not\022.  Where again, investigation into the  circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on  under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code the High  Court dos not interfere with such investigation because it  would then be the impeding investigation and jurisdiction of  statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the  provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

20.             In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. The State of West  Bengal & Anr.  this Court held that:

\023The police authorities have under Sections 154  and 156 of the Code a statutory right to  investigate into a cognizable offence without  requiring any sanction from a judicial authority  and even the High Court has no inherent power  under Section 561-A of the Code to interfere  with the exercise of that statutory power.\024

21.             In  State of W.B. & Ors. Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana [  2004) 4 SCC 129],  this Court while dealing with the nature  of inherent powers of the High Court held that the inherent  power of the High Court is saved only where an order has been  passed by the Criminal Court which is required to be set aside  to secure the ends of justice or where the proceedings pending  before a court amounts to abuse of the process of Court.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 21  

power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the  High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal  court or where a power is exercised by the Court under the  Code of Criminal Procedure.      22.             In our view, there is nothing like unlimited arbitrary  jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section 482 of  the Code.  The power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully  and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the  tests laid down in the Section itself.  It is well settled that  Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High Court  but only saves the inherent power  which the court possessed  before the enactment of the Code. There are three  circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be  exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code,  (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to  otherwise secure the ends of justice.  

23.             Chandrachud, J. (as His Lordship then was), in  Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana  while  considering the nature of jurisdiction conferred upon the High  Court under Section 482 of the Code observed: \023It ought to be realised that inherent powers do  not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High  Court to act according to whim or caprice. That  statutory power has to be exercised sparingly,  with circumspection and in the rarest of rare  cases.\024

24.             Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel contended  that in the instant case the High Court properly exercised its  inherent power in entertaining the grievance of  victim alleging  bias on the part of the Investigating Officer  which is also one  of the allegations made in the anonymous complaint.   The  submission was that the power available to the High Court  under Section 482 of the Code is so wide and cannot be  subjected to any limitation, except in cases where there is a  specific provision in the Code to provide adequate remedies to  the aggrieved person.  The inherent power is co-extensive with  the text of the Code and it can be exercised in respect of any of  the matters covered by the Code, be it investigation, inquiry or  trial.  The learned counsel in support of the submissions relied  upon the decisions of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs.  L. Muniswamy & Ors. ,     Central Bureau of Investigation  Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr.   & Popular  Muthiah Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police .   

25.             In Muniswamy (supra) the learned Sessions Judge  refused to discharge the accused therein and proceeded for  framing specific charges as made out from the material on  record against the accused persons.  The High Court of  Karnataka in the exercise of its inherent power quashed the  proceedings initiated by the State of Karnataka and  accordingly discharged the accused.  The High Court as well  as this Court found that there was no material on the record  on which any court could reasonably convict the accused for  any offence. It is under those circumstances this Court came  to the conclusion that it would be a sheer waste of public time  and money to permit the proceedings to continue against the  accused. In that regard this Court observed:   

\023The saving of the High Court\022s inherent  powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is  designed to achieve a salutary public purpose

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 21  

which is that a court proceeding ought not to be  permitted to degenerate into a weapon of  harassment or persecution.\024

26.             In  Central Bureau of Investigation  (supra) this  Court cautioned that the inherent power should not be  exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and the High Court  should refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case  where the entire facts are incomplete  and hazy, more so when  the evidence has not been collected and produced before the  Court.    

27.             In Popular Muthiah (supra) this Court summarized  the law as to when the High Court can exercise its inherent  jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the proceedings. The  law was stated in the following manner:  \023(i) Power can be exercised suo motu in  the interest of justice.  If such a power is  not conceded, it may even lead to  injustice to an accused.  

(ii)    Such a power can be exercised  concurrently with the appellate or  revisional jurisdiction and no formal  application is required to be filed therefor.

(iii)   However, the power under Section  482 Cr.P.C. is not unlimited.  It can inter  alia be exercised where the Code is silent,  where the power of the court is not  treated as exhaustive, or there is a  specific provision in the Code; or the  statute does not fall within the purview of  the Code because it involves application  of a special law.  It acts ex debito  justitiae.  It can, thus, do real and  substantial justice for which alone it  exists.\024

28.             In our view, none of the decisions upon which  reliance has been placed lend any support to the submissions  made by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.  On  the other hand, in Popular Muthiah (supra)  this Court  held   that the High Court  was not correct in issuing direction to   take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what  section the appellant  therein has to be charged and tried  and  directing CB,CID to take up the matter and reinvestigate and  prosecute the appellant therein. \023Such a power does not come  within the purview of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure. Investigation of an offence is a statutory power of  the police.  The State in its discretion may get the investigation  done by any agency unless there exists an extraordinary  situation.\024   This  Court further held that the High Court  cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a  particular angle or by a particular agency.  

29.             The question that arises for our consideration is  whether the contents of the petition submitted by the victim  and as well as the allegations made in the anonymous  complaint reveal any cause for issuing directions relieving the  Investigating Officer of his statutory power and duty to  investigate Crime No. 381 of 2005 under Section 376(g) of the  Indian Penal Code?  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 21  

30.             The allegations in the anonymous complaint are in  two parts.  The first part relates to Crime No. 381 of 2005  wherein it is alleged that investigation in crime has been \021put  to cold storage due to influence exerted at high places\022.  This is  required to be considered along with the petition sent by the  victim herself making certain allegations against the police in  general.    The allegations are against two police constables  that they have tortured her mentally in connection with the  investigation of the case.  She complained that truth will never  come out if the case is entrusted to the police for investigation.  She prayed for a \023confidential investigation\024.   Neither the  anonymous petition nor the complaint made by the victim has  been directed against the  Investigating Officer  complaining of  any bias or any attempt on his part to destroy the available  evidence.  

31.             Be it noted that Thankappan, J.  vide order dated  22.12.2005 having perused the file including the petition  submitted by the victim  directed the matter   to be closed  as  it required no further probe.   

32.             Be that as it may, Crime No. 381 of 2005 itself was  registered pursuant to the order of the Magistrate under  Section 156 (3) of the Code.  We are unable to appreciate as to  how the learned Judge could have ordered investigation by  Special Investigation Team constituted by himself on the  strength of such wild, imaginary and vague allegations.  It is  difficult to discern the basis for arriving at the conclusion that  the entire attempt of the Investigating Officer was to exonerate  the accused and make the complainant as accused.  The  investigation was in progress as is evident from the case diary.   The Special Investigation Team also proceeded on the same  lines as that of the Investigating Officer and similar  observations as the one made by the Investigating Officer are  to be found in the report of the Special Investigation Team  submitted to this Court.  The facts gathered by the  Investigating Officer about the victim were part of the result of  the investigation.   This Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of  India  [(2007) 1 SCC 110]   upon analysis of the relevant  provisions of the Code  held that after completion of the  investigation if it appears to the Investigating Officer that there  is no sufficient evidence, he may decide to release the  suspected accused.  If, it appears to him that there is  sufficient evidence or reasonable ground to place the accused   on trial, he has to take necessary steps under Section 170 of  the Code. \021In either case, on completion of the investigation  he  has to submit a report to the Magistrate under Section 173 of  the Code in the prescribed form who is required to consider  the report judicially for taking appropriate action thereof\022.  We  do not propose to deal with the options available in law to the  Magistrate and even to a victim or informant as the case may  be.

33.             The sum and substance of the above deliberation  and analysis of the law cited leads us to an irresistible  conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field  exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in  that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate  into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict  compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code.   However, we may hasten to add that unfettered discretion  does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and  act according to one\022s own choice.   The power to investigate  must be exercised strictly on the condition of which that power  is granted by the Code itself.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 21  

34.             In our view, the High Court in exercise of its  inherent jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in  the midstream   and appoint any agency of its own choice to  investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more  particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions  addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot be  converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in  motion. Neither the accused nor the complainant or informant  are entitled to choose their own investigating agency to  investigate a crime in which they may be interested.  

35.             It is altogether a different matter that the High  Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the  Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions  at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is  convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised  by an Investigating Officer mala fide.  That power is to be  exercised in rarest of the rare cases where a clear case of  abuse of power and non-compliance with the provisions falling  under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring  the interference of the High Court.  But even in such cases,  the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the  investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the  observance of process as provided for in the Code.         36              Even in cases where no action is taken by the police  on the information given to them, the informant\022s remedy lies  under Sections 190, 200 Cr. P.C., but a Writ Petition in such a  case is not to be entertained.  This Court in Gangadhar  Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.   held:

\023When the information is laid with the police,  but no action in that behalf is taken, the  complainant is given power under Section 190  read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the  complaint before the Magistrate having  jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence  and the Magistrate is required to enquire into  the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the  Code.  In case the Magistrate after recording  evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of  issuing process to the accused, he is  empowered to direct the police concerned to  investigate into offence under Chapter XII of the  Code and to submit a report.  If he finds that  the complaint does not disclose any offence to  take further action, he is empowered to dismiss  the complaint under Section 203 of the Code.  In  case he finds that the complaint/evidence  recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is  empowered to take cognizance of the offence  and would issue process to the accused.  These  aspects have been highlighted by this Court in  All India Institute of Medical Sciences  Employees\022 Union (Regd.) V. Union of India .  It  was specifically observed that a writ petition in  such cases is not to be entertained.\024       

WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN  ENTERTAINING ANONYMOUS PETITION?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 21  

37.             The second part of the anonymous letter relates to  allegations that: (a) in the past two years number of  unidentified dead bodies were found on the National Highway  and the railway track situated near to the Retreat Centre; (b)  there is a practice of burying the dead bodies in the public  burial ground without following any procedure; (c) recently the  dead body of a lady aged about 30 years was entrusted with  one Karyavelu  for burying the dead body in the burial ground.  When the dead body was taken for burial, Karyavelu noticed  number of injuries on that dead body.  He is alleged to have  informed the Priest of the Divine Centre that henceforth he will  not undertake any burial of such bodies. It is alleged that  Karyavelu himself died in the suspicious circumstances and a  case was registered under the caption \023unnatural death\024; (d)  there is a gang in the retreat centre and one  Sr. Teresa and  two helpers were helping the gang to carry on anti-social  activities.  It is alleged that the leader of the gang is Rev.  Father Mathew Thadathil.  Sibi   was his right hand person  who also died under  the mysterious circumstances.  

38.             One of the documents enclosed to the anonymous  petition is a magazine by name \021Divine Voice\022 published by the  appellant.  In one of the volumes published in June, 2005 the  names of senior I.A.S and I.P.S officers were mentioned as the  members of the Advisory Board; one such named officer is  stated to have decided some matter in favour of the appellant.  The High Court in writ petition (c) No. 22543/05 made some  observations to the effect that the said officer was really  associated with the appellant centre, the order passed by that  officer in favour of the appellant is a nullity.  Thereafter the  name of that officer was deleted from the names of persons of  the Advisory Board. Based on such vague and indefinite  allegations the High Court gave the following directions  without even issuing notice to the appellant:  (i)     Government shall issue notification under  Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act  conferring power to the Special Investigation  Team constituted by the court to investigate  the offences under the Prevention of  Corruption Act; (ii)    The Special Investigation Team shall also  inquire into the allegations of foreign exchange  violation;  (iii)   The Special Investigation Team shall also  inquire into the allegations of unnatural  deaths stated in the petition.  

39.             The Special Investigation Team was entrusted with  power to investigate into any other cognizable offence in case  the Team gets information about the commission of any such  cognizable offence. The learned Judge accordingly issued  appropriate directions to the Government, the Director  General of Police and all other departments of the Government  to cooperate and render necessary assistance to the Special  Investigation Team.  

40.             On a careful perusal of the order passed by the  learned Judge, we find that the learned Judge initiated suo  motu proceedings without even examining as to whether the  contents of the anonymous letter and material sent along with  it disclosed any prima facie case for ordering an investigation.   The question is:  can investigation be ordered by the High  Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482  of the Code based on such vague and indefinite allegations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 21  

made in unsigned petition without even arriving at any prima  facie conclusion that the contents thereof reveal commission of  any cognizable offence? Whether such directions could have  been issued by the High Court even in exercise of its  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?  

41.     In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering  Services, U.P. and Ors. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr.  ,  this Court took the view that a decision to direct an enquiry  against a person can only be done if the High Court after  considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that  such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an  investigation by an Investigating Agency, and the same cannot  be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party  makes some such allegations.  This Court relying upon its  earlier decision in Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs.  Union of India & ors.    held that a direction for  investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie,  found to have been committed or a person\022s involvement is  prima facie established, but a direction to investigate whether  any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally  given.    

42.             Just to point out that there is no prima facie finding  by the High Court while directing an investigation by the  impugned order, we would like to quote the following few  sentences:  

\0237.  As I have already stated there are various  other allegations leveled against the Retreat  Centre.  One of the documents produced in a  magazine the front page of a publication by  name \023Divine Voice\024 published by the Divine  Retreat Centre at Muringoor.  It is captioned as  a spiritual congregation of the Government  Officials.  In the 9th volume published in June  2005, the names of a Senior I.A.S. Officer and a  Senior I.P.S. Officer, were stated as the  members of the Advisory Board.  It is seen that  a Writ Petition was filed against the Retreat  Centre by an orphanage as W.P.(C) No. 22543  of 2005 before this Court in which a specific  allegation of bias was raised against that I.A.S.  Officer.  It was alleged that she was associated  with the running of the Divine Retreat Centre.   This Court held that if she is really associated  with the Retreat Centre, the order passed by  the appellate authority in that case is nullity.   Strangely enough from the next month onwards,  the name of that officer was deleted from the  list of names of persons in the Advisory Board.   But still the name of a Senior I.P.S. Officer is  stated as the member of the Advisory Board. It  is necessary to investigate the role of  Government Officials in the running of the  Centre and whether any of such public servants  have committed the offences punishable under  the provisions of the P.C. Act and take  appropriate action taken.  Along with the  complaint a number of documents and three  CDs are enclosed.  In the paper cuttings  appended in the petition, it is alleged that a  number of deaths took place under mysterious  circumstances in and around the Retreat  Centre.  There is allegation of receipt of foreign

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 21  

money without proper authority.  It is also  necessary to enquire into the allegation that the  Centre is getting foreign aid in violation of  Foreign Exchange Law and take appropriate  action in accordance with law if any violation is  established.  In view of the allegation that  Senior I.A.S. and I.P.S. Officers, are associated  with the functioning of the Retreat Centre, and  because of the allegations leveled against the  Investigating Officer, I am of the view that it is  only just and proper that the investigation of  Crime No. 381 of 2005 is taken away from the  present Investigation Officer which is entrusted  with a Senior Police Officer below the rank of  Inspector General of Police.  It is also necessary  to see that the person who is appointed is  having some knowledge about the working of  the Retreat Centre.  

10.     The Special Investigation Team shall also  enquire into the allegation of unnatural deaths  stated in the petition.  The team shall enquire  as to whether a person by name Karyavelu  worked in the burial ground and whether he  died under mysterious circumstances.  In any  case was registered in connection with the  death of Karyavelu the present stage of that  investigation shall be verified and appropriate  action taken.  The Team shall also enquire  whether there was a person by name Raju  attached to the Retreat Centre and whether he  died under suspicious circumstances.  In case  the team gets information regarding any  cognizable offences, those matters shall also be  investigated in accordance with law.\024

From the above, we find that the High Court has merely  quoted certain allegations made against the appellant and  others and proceeded on the basis of  those allegations made  in the anonymous petition without forming  any prima facie  opinion  with regard to those allegations.   

43.             It is evident from Sections 154, 156 and 157 of the  Code that even a police officer can act on the basis of  information received or otherwise and proceed to investigate  provided he has reason to suspect the commission of a  cognizable offence which he is empowered to investigate under  Section 156 Cr.P.C.  If the essential requirements of the penal  provisions are not prima facie disclosed by a First Information  Report and the police officer has no reason to suspect the  commission of a cognizable offence, no investigation can be  undertaken by him based on the information received or  otherwise.  Can the High Court  set the law in motion against  the named and unnamed individuals based on the information  received by it without recording the reasons that the  information received by it prima facie disclosed the  commission of a cognizable offence.  Setting Criminal Law in  motion is fraught with serious consequences, which cannot  lightly be undertaken by the High Court even in exercise of its  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  In  our view, the High Court in exercise of its whatsoever  jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by constituting a  Special Investigation Team on the strength of anonymous  petitions.  The High Courts cannot be converted into Station  Houses.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 21  

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE: WHETHER THE  APPELLANT HAS NO LOCUS?

44.             The order directing the investigation on the basis of  such vague and indefinite allegations undoubtedly is in the  teeth of principles of natural justice.   It was, however,  submitted that accused gets a right of hearing only after  submission of the charge-sheet, before a charge is framed or  the accused is discharged vide Sections 227 & 228 and 239  and 240 Cr.P.C.  The appellant is not an accused and,  therefore,  it was not entitled for any notice from the High  Court before passing of the impugned order.  We are  concerned with the question as to whether the High Court  could have  passed a judicial order directing investigation  against the appellant and its activities without providing an  opportunity of being heard to it.   The case on hand is a case  where the criminal law is directed to be set in motion on the  basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition filed in  the High Court.  No judicial order can ever be passed by any  court  without providing a reasonable opportunity of being  heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and  particularly  when such order results in drastic consequences  of affecting one\022s own reputation.   In our view, the impugned  order of the High Court  directing enquiry and investigation  into allegations in respect of which not even any  complaint/information has been lodged   with the police is  violative of principles of natural justice.  

45.             It is unnecessary to go into the question as to  whether Divine Retreat Centre is not a \023person\024 contemplated  by Article 21 of the Constitution and express any opinion as to  whether any right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution  has been infringed.  Suffice it to note that, the Director of the  appellant \026 institution has been impleaded as a party  respondent in the criminal petition and the whole of the  allegations in the anonymous petition are leveled against the  appellant and in such a situation it was imperative for the  High Court to put the appellant on notice before passing the  impugned order.   

               The appellant undoubtedly is aggrieved by the  impugned order and, therefore, entitled to invoke the  jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution  of India.   The decisions in  Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary  (supra) and Union of India & Anr. Vs.W.N. Chadha  laying  down the law that hearing to the accused is provided by the  Code under specified circumstances are not relevant to decide  the issue of locus in cases where challenge is to a judicial  order under which institutions and/or persons connected  therewith are subjected to inquiry and investigation.   

46.              Here is a case where no information has been given  to the police by any informant alleging commission of any  cognizable offence by the appellant and the persons associated  with the appellant \026 institution.  It is a peculiar case of its own  kind where an anonymous petition is sent directly in the name  of a learned judge of the Kerala High Court, which was suo  motu taken up as a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code.   The High Court ought not to have entertained such a petition  for taking the same on file under Section 482 of the Code.  

47.               It was contended that nomenclature of the petition  is not decisive.  The High Court can exercise power suo motu  either under Article 226 or under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 21  

under both.  It was submitted that if for any reason the  petition entertained by the High Court is held not   maintainable under Section 482 of the Code, the same can  always be treated as the one filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution of India.  Reliance was placed upon the  observations made by this Court in Pepsi Foods Vs. Special  Judicial Magistrate .   The decision in Pepsi Foods   (supra) is an authority for the proposition that nomenclature  under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does  not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which  otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure  prescribed which procedure is mandatory.  This Court took  the view that if the court finds that the appellant could not  invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court can  certainly treat the petition as one under Article 227 or Section  482 of the Code.  The observations were made in the context of  correcting grave errors that might be committed by the  subordinate courts.  The decision does not lay down any law  that the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482  of the Code or Article 227 may be resorted to constitute any  special Investigating Agency to investigate into allegations  made for the first time in an anonymous petition.   

48.     In our view, the whole of public law remedies  available under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India  and the constituent power to issue writs in  the natu 49.     pp 50.     pre of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and co- warranto are neither echoed nor transplanted  into Section 482.  May be both the powers to  issue writs and pass appropriate orders under  Section 482 of the Code are conferred upon the  High Court but they undoubtedly operate in  different fields.  

WHETHER THE ANONYMOUS PETITION IS TO BE  TREATED AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ?

49.              The question that falls for our consideration is  whether the anonymous letter sent in the name of a Judge can  be entertained as Public Interest Litigation?  It is well settled  that a public interest litigation can be entertained by the  Constitutional Courts only at the instance of a bona fide  litigant.  The author of the letter in this case is anonymous,  there is no way to verify his bonafides and in fact no effort was  made by the Court to verify about the authenticity, truth or  otherwise of the contents of the petition.     It is not the case of  the appellant that no Writ Petition under Article 226 of the  Constitution of India can be entertained on the strength of a  letter addressed by a bona fide litigant to the High Court.  This  Court in Sunil Batra (II) Vs. Delhi Administration  has  accepted a letter written to the Supreme Court by one Sunil  Batra, a prisoner from Tihar Jail, Delhi complaining of  inhuman torture in the jail.   In Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) Vs.  State of U.P. , this Court entertained letter sent by the two  Professors of Delhi University seeking enforcement of the  constitutional right of the inmates in a Protective Home, at  Agra who were living in inhuman and degrading conditions.  In  Miss Veena Sethi V. State of Bihar , this Court treated  letter addressed to a Judge of this Court by the Free Legal Aid  Committee at Hazaribagh, Bihar as a writ petition.   In  Citizens for Democracy through its President Vs. State of  Assam & ors.  upon which reliance has been placed by Shri  P.P. Rao,  this Court  entertained a letter addressed by Shri

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 21  

Kuldip Nayar, an eminent journalist, in his capacity as  President of \023Citizens for Democracy\024 to one of the judges of  this Court complaining of human rights violations of TADA  detenues and the same was treated as a petition under Article  32 of the Constitution of the India.    But in none of these  cases, the Court entertained anonymous petition and  converted the same into a Public Interest Litigation.  We do not  propose to burden this judgment with various authoritative  pronouncements of this Court laying down the parameters of  Public Interest Litigation.  Suffice it to recapitulate that this  Court uniformly and consistently held that the individual who  moves the court for judicial redress in cases of Public Interest  Litigation must be acting bone fide with a view to vindicating  the cause of justice and not for any personal gain or private  profit or of the political motivation or other oblique  consideration.  The Court should not allow itself to be  activised at the instance of such person and must reject his  application at the threshold, whether it be in the form of a  letter addressed to the court or even in the form of a regular  petition filed in Court.  In S.P. Gupta & ors. Vs. President of  India & ors.  , this Court in clear and unequivocal terms  observed that it would be prudent for the constitutional courts  to \023confine this strategic exercise of jurisdiction to cases where  legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a determinate class or  group of persons or the constitutional or legal right of such  determinate class or group of persons is violated and as far as  possible, not entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at  the instance of a third party, where there is an effective legal- aid organization which can take care of such cases.\024  

50.             The law in this regard is summarized in Janata  Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary  thus: \023It is thus clear that only a person acting bona  fide and having sufficient interest in the  proceeding of PIL will alone have a locus standi  and can approach the Court to wipe out the  tears of the poor and needy, suffering from  violation of their fundamental rights, but not a  person for personal gain or private profit or  political motive or any oblique consideration.   Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour  of PIL brought before the Court for vindicating  any personal grievance, deserves rejection at  the threshold.\024

51.             In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of  Maharashtra & ors.  this Court observed:

\023The attractive brand name of public interest  litigation should not be used for suspicious  products of mischief.  It should be aimed at  redressal of genuine public wrong or public  injury and not be publicity-oriented or founded  on personal vendetta.  As indicated above, court  must be careful to see that a body of persons or  member of the public, who approaches the court  is  acting bona fide and not for personal gain or  private motive or political motivation or other  oblique considerations.  The Court must not  allow its process to be abused for oblique  considerations by masked phantoms who  monitor at times from behind.  Some persons  with vested interest indulge in the pastime of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 21  

meddling with judicial process either by force of  habit or from improper motives, and try to  bargain for a good deal as well as to enrich  themselves.  Often they are actuated by a  desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity.  The  petitions of such busybodies deserve to be  thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in  appropriate cases with exemplary costs.\024

52.             In State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. Sampat Lal &  Ors. , this Court administered a caution stating when  communications complaining of violation of rights of the  deprived and vulnerable sections of the community are sent to  the court, care and caution should be adopted to ensure that  the process of the court is not abused or misused.  \023The Court  should be prima facie satisfied that the information laid before  it is of such a nature that it calls for examination and this  prima facie satisfaction may be derived from the credentials of  the informant, namely, what is the character or standing of  the informant or from the nature of the information given by  him, namely, whether it is vague and indefinite or contains  specific allegations as a result of survey or investigation or  from the gravity or seriousness of the complaint set out in the  information or from any other circumstance or circumstances  appearing from the communication addressed to the court or  to a Judge of the court on behalf of the court.\024         53.             How to verify the credentials,  character or standing  of the informant who does not disclose his identity?  In the  instant case, there is no whisper in the order passed by the  High Court about any attempts made to verify the credentials,  character or standing of the informant. Obviously, the High  Court could not have verified  the same since the petition  received by it is an unsigned one.     

54.             In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India &  ors. (supra), this Court visualized grave danger inherent in a  practice where a mere letter is entertained as a petition from a  person whose antecedents and status are unknown or so  uncertain that no sense of responsibility can, without  anything more, be attributed to the communication.  It has  been observed that the document petitioning the court for  relief should be supported by satisfactory verification. This  requirement is all the greater where petitions are received by  the Court through the post.  It is never beyond the bound of  possibility that an unverified communication received through  the post by the Court may in fact have been employed mala  fide, as an instrument of coercion or blackmail or other  oblique motive against a person named therein who holds a  position of honour and respect in society.  The Court must be  ever vigilant against the abuse of its process.  It cannot do that  better in the matter than insisting at the earliest stage, and  before issuing notice to the respondent, that an appropriate  verification of the allegations be supplied.   

55.             In our view, the Public Interest Litigant must  disclose his identity so as to enable the court to decide that  the informant is not a wayfarer or officious intervener without  any interest or concern.    

56.             In such view of the matter the suo motu action  initiated cannot be treated as the one in public interest  litigation.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 21  

THE IMPORTANCE OF ROSTER:

57.              It is clear from the record that the learned Judge  was not dealing with any public interest litigation cases as on  the date of entertaining anonymous petition.    It is beyond  pale of any doubt and controversy that the administrative  control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice of the High  Court alone and it is his prerogative to distribute business of  the High Court both judicial and administrative; that the Chief  justice is the master of the roster.  He alone has the  prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate  cases to the benches so constituted; and the puisne judges  can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief  Justice or under his directions; that the puisne judges cannot  \023pick and choose\024 any case pending in the High Court and  assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without  appropriate orders of the Chief Justice.  (See State of  Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand & Ors. )

58.             This Court in more than one case expressed its  reservation about individual judges entertaining the  communications and petitions addressed to them to pass  orders on judicial side. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union  of India & ors. ,  the Court in clear and unequivocal terms  declared that communications and petitions addressed to a  particular judge are improper and violate the institutional  personality of the court.  They also embarrass the Judge to  whom they are personally addressed.  \023The fundamental  conception of the Court must be respected, that it is a single  indivisible institution, of united purpose and existing solely for  the high constitutional functions for which it has been  created.  The conception of the Court as a loose aggregate of  individual Judges, to one or more of whom judicial access may  be particularly had, undermines its very existence and  endangers its proper and effective functioning.\024   

59.             In our view, the learned judge ought not to have  entertained the anonymous petition, contents of which remain  unverified and made it basis for setting the law in motion as  against the appellant as he was not entrusted with the judicial  duty of disposing of PIL matters.  

60.             Institution\022s own reputation is a priceless treasure.   History teaches us that the independence of the judiciary is  jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of  the day and assume primary responsibility to resolve the  issues which are otherwise not entrusted to it by adopting  procedures which are otherwise not known.   

61.             There is heavy duty cast upon the constitutional  courts to protect themselves from the onslaught unleashed by  unscrupulous litigants masquerading as Public Interest  Litigants.  The individual judges ought not to entertain  communications and letters personally addressed to them and  initiate action on the judicial side based on such  communication so as to avoid embarrassment; that all  communications and petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the  court must be addressed to the entire Court, that is to say, the  Chief Justice and his companion Judges.  The individual  letters, if any, addressed to a particular judge are required to  be placed before the  Chief Justice for consideration as to the  proposed action on such petitions.  Each Judge cannot decide

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 21  

for himself as to what communication should be entertained  for setting the law in motion be it in PIL or in any jurisdiction.  

62.             It is needless to say that none of  these aspects have  been taken into consideration by the High Court before setting  the criminal law in motion as against the appellant. The  sweeping directions issued by the Court are in the nature of  ordering an inquisition against the appellant and the persons  connected with it to find out as to whether they have  committed any cognizable offence.  Such a course is  impermissible in law.  

63.             For the aforesaid reasons, directions issued by the  High Court constituting the Special Investigation Team to  investigate into the allegations made in anonymous petition  are set aside.  

RELIEF

64.     However, the fact remains that the Circle Inspector of  Police, Chalakuddy  having  registered Crime No. 381 of 2005  made investigation in exercise of statutory power coupled with  duty under the orders of learned Judicial First Class  Magistrate, Chalakuddy.  The learned Judge having  entertained the petition/complaint from the victim ordered  further investigation into the crime by the Special  Investigation Team headed by the third respondent.  The third  respondent having  completed the investigation arrived at  certain conclusions but  unnecessarily kept  the matter  pending on the ground that \023the paternity of the first child is  to be verified with the accused and some other persons who  were also found closely associated with the victim during the  relevant period.\024  This is beyond one\022s imagination as to how  and why such an inquiry is required to be made.   The First  Information Report, material gathered during the  investigation, contents of the victim\022s complaint and  conclusions drawn by the Special Investigation Team  themselves do not justify any such further enquiry.     65.              In the circumstances of the case, we direct the  third respondent to make available the material gathered  during the course of investigation in Crime No. 381 of 2005    to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chalakuddy (Investigating  Officer)  within two weeks  from the date of  the receipt of copy  of this order.   Thereafter, the Investigating Officer shall  submit appropriate report in accordance with the provisions of  the Code  within four weeks before the Magistrate  who shall  consider the report to be so filed judicially in accordance with  law.   

66.             We make it clear that we have not expressed any  opinion whatsoever on the merits of the case.  

67.             Subject to the above directions the impugned order  of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is accordingly  allowed.  

68.             Since the question is one of general importance, we  would direct the copies of this judgment should be sent to the  High Courts in all the States.