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

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  

2

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  

3

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.

4

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  

5

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  

6

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  

7

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  

8

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  

9

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

1