Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 792 OF 2008

State of Punjab              …… Petitioner  

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.                          …… Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution has  

been filed by the State of Punjab praying for special leave to  

appeal  against  the  order  dated  11.12.2007  of  the  High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No.  

51620 of 2007 (for short “the impugned order”).

2. The  facts  very  briefly  are  that  on  18.04.2007  

respondent no.3 lodged FIR No. 82 at Police Station City-I,  

Moga against Simran Kaur @ Indu and her husband Ajay  

Kumar alleging offences under Sections 366, 376, 406, 420,

506, 344 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,  

1860 (for short ‘the IPC’).  Pursuant to the FIR, Simran Kaur  

and  Ajay  Kumar  were  arrested  on  19.04.2007,  but  Ajay  

Kumar managed to escape from the custody of police and  

FIR No.  83,  Police  Station City-I,  Moga dated 19.04.2007  

under Section 224 of the IPC was registered against him.  In  

course of investigation of the case, respondent no.3 made a  

statement before the police under Section 161 of the Code of  

Criminal  Procedure,  1973  (for  short  ‘the  Cr.P.C.’)  on  

23.04.2007 naming 14 other persons who had sex with her  

against her will and some of these persons were arrested by  

Sub-Inspector Raman Kumar.  The statement of respondent  

no.3 was recorded on 25.04.2007 under Section 164 of the  

Cr.P.C.  by  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Moga.  On  

08.05.2007, the investigation of the case was entrusted to  

Inspector Amarjit Singh, S.H.O. PS City-I, Moga.  Some of  

the persons named by respondent no.3 in her statements  

were  found  to  be  innocent  and  were  released.   After  

completing  the  investigation,  Inspector  Amarjit  Singh  

submitted  a  charge  sheet  on 01.06.2007  in  Court  under  

Section 173 of the Cr.P.C naming Simran Kaur @ Indu, Ajay  

2

Kumar, Vimal Kumar, Subhash Chander, Ramesh Kumar,  

Randhir Singh, Iqbal Singh, Bharat Bhushan and Inderjit  

Singh as accused persons.   

3. On  04.06.2007  FIR  No.  160  was  registered  under  

Sections 342, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC  

at PS Baghapuran against several accused persons.  One of  

the  accused  persons  Ranjit  Singh,  however,  made  a  

complaint to the Additional Director General of Police (Law  

and Order) that he has been falsely implicated by Inspector  

Amarjit Singh in connivance with Manjeet Kaur because he  

had  recorded  a  conversation  by  Inspector  Amarjit  Singh  

with him in the mobile that he would be arrested if he did  

not  pay  a  certain  amount  to  him  and  a  compact  disc  

containing  the  recorded  conversation  was  prepared  and  

attached with the complaint.   Investigation into this  case  

was  entrusted  to  Inspector  Bhupinder  Singh,  Deputy  

Superintendent of Police,  Bhaga Pura, District Moga.  On  

completion of the enquiry it was found that the allegations  

against  the  accused  persons  were  false.   Accordingly,  on  

24.10.2007 FIR No. 198 was registered at PS City –I, Moga  

under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption  

3

Act, 1988 read with Sections 384, 211 and 120-B of the IPC  

against  Inspector  Amarjit  Singh  and  Manjeet  Kaur  and  

respondent no.3 and Inspector Amarjit Singh were arrested.  

During investigation it also came to light that Sub-Inspector  

Raman Singh, the then S.H.O., PS Badhnikalan was helping  

Manjeet Kaur and respondent no.3 and that Sub-Inspector  

Raman  Singh  had  accepted  illegal  gratification.  

Accordingly,  offences under  Sections 195,  201,  202,  218,  

219, 221, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC were added in the  

case registered as FIR no. 198 of 2007 and Sub-Inspector  

Raman  Singh  was  also  named  as  an  accused  alongwith  

Inspector Amarjit Singh. Sub-Inspector Raman Kumar was  

also dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of  

Police.  

4. On  11.11.2007,  Manjeet  Kaur  and  respondent  no.3  

were  arrested  and  during  interrogation  respondent  no.3  

alleged that  on 04.11.2007,  Sub-Inspector  Raman Kumar  

took her and Bhupinder Kumar @ Rocky Sharma to a place  

at  Karnal  in  Haryana,  where  Bhupinder  Kumar  @ Rocky  

Sharma raped her during the night of 04/05.11.2007.  On  

13.11.2007, a news item was published in the Hindustan  

4

Times headlined ‘Moga Sex Scandal’ and two ladies, namely,  

respondent no.3 of Village Varsaal and her relative Manjeet  

Kaur of Village Badduwal had been arrested.  This news was  

also published in the Tribune dated 12.11.2007.

5. The High Court took suo motu notice of the news items  

and  issued  notices  to  the  State  of  Punjab,  Senior  

Superintendent  of  Police,  Moga  and  Deputy  Inspector  

General of Police, Ferozpur Range and directed the Deputy  

Superintendent  of  Police,  Bhupinder  Singh,  who  was  

investigating into the case, to file the status report of the  

investigation on the next date of hearing.  On 15.11.2007,  

Bhupinder  Kumar  was  arrested  and  FIR  No.  225  was  

registered at  Police  Station  Tarawari,  Distt.  Karnal  under  

Sections  376,  342  and  34  of  the  IPC  against  him.   On  

19.11.2007,  status report  was  submitted  before  the  High  

Court by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhupinder Singh  

stating  that  the  investigation  is  still  in  progress.   On  

19.11.2007,  a  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Application  was  

moved  by  an  advocate  on  behalf  of  Bhushan  Garg  and  

Inderjit Singh, two Municipal Councilors of Moga, alleging  

that at the instance of local influential political persons and  

5

senior  police  officers,  many  innocent  persons,  including  

Bhushan Garg  and Inderjit  Singh were  implicated  in  FIR  

No.82 dated 18.04.2007 registered with Police Station City-

I, Moga.  The applicants apprehended that the investigation  

may not be fair  and proper because senior police officers  

and highly influential persons were involved in the case.   

6. When the case was taken up before the High Court on  

20.11.2007, the Additional Advocate General placed before  

the High Court a copy of the order of the Additional Director  

General  of  Police  (Crime),  Punjab  dated  19.11.2007  

entrusting  the  investigation  into  FIR  No.  82  dated  

18.04.2007,  FIR  No.  83  dated  19.04.2007,  FIR  No.  160  

dated 04.06.2007 and FIR No. 198 dated 24.10.2007 to a  

special  investigation  team  (for  short  ‘the  SIT’).   On  

20.11.2007, the High Court observed that the SIT had been  

constituted without the permission of the Court and issued  

notice  to  the  CBI  for  the  purpose  of  entrusting  the  

investigation of the case to the CBI.   

7. Pursuant to the notice, the CBI appeared and stated in  

its reply that the CBI was over burdened with investigation  

of the cases referred to by this Court, the High Court and  

6

the Union of India and that it was facing acute shortage of  

man power and resources and therefore the case should not  

be entrusted to the CBI particularly when it does not have  

any  interstate  and  international  ramifications.   The  High  

Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and  

after  considering various status reports filed by the state  

police passed the impugned order on 11.12.2007 directing  

that the investigation of the cases be entrusted to the CBI.  

On 12.12.2007, the High Court passed an order clarifying  

that  the  CBI  has  been  directed  by  the  order  dated  

11.12.2007 to investigate into FIR No.82, FIR No.83 and FIR  

No.198 of P.S. City I, Moga, FIR No.160 of P.S. Baghapurana  

and FIR No.225 of P.S. Tarawari, District Karnal (Haryana).  

By the order dated 12.12.2007, the High Court also stayed  

further  proceedings  before  the  Trial  Court  in  the  case  

arising  out  of  FIR No.82 of  P.S.  City  I,  Moga,  till  further  

orders.  

8. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for the petitioner (State  

of  Punjab)  submitted  that  the  High  Court  had  failed  to  

appreciate  that  on  01.06.2007  charge  sheet  had  already  

been filed against nine accused persons after investigation  

7

into  FIR  No.  82  of  Police  Station  City-I,  Moga,  and,  

therefore, no direction could be given to the CBI to conduct  

the investigation into the case.  He cited the observations of  

this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India  [(1998) 1 SCC  

226] that the task of the monitoring Court would end the  

moment  charge  sheet  was filed  in  respect  of  a  particular  

investigation and thereafter the ordinary procedure of law  

would then take over.  He submitted that after the charge  

sheet is filed, the Court has powers under sub-section (8) of  

Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation by  

the police,  but  the  Court  has no power  to  direct  a  fresh  

investigation or reinvestigation into the case by the police.  

He submitted that the High Court, therefore, could not have  

directed  the  CBI  to  start  a  fresh  investigation  or  

reinvestigation of the case after the police had filed charge  

sheet under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.  In  

support  of  this  submission,  he  cited  the  decision  of  this  

Court  in  Mithabhai  Pashabhai  Patel  v.  State  of  Gujarat   

[(2009) 6 SCC 332] in which this Court made a distinction  

between further investigation and reinvestigation and held  

that under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the  

8

Court can grant permission for further investigation and not  

for reinvestigation.  

9. Mr.  Anoop  G.  Chaudhari,  learned  counsel  for  

respondent  no.3,  argued  that  once  challan  is  filed  and  

charges  are  framed,  the  High  Court  cannot  direct  

reinvestigation  by  the  CBI.   He  submitted  that  in  the  

present case, the challan had been filed on 01.06.2007 in  

respect  of  FIR  No.82,  Police  Station  City-I,  Moga  dated  

18.04.2007  and  the  Court  had  also  framed  charges  on  

08.11.2007 and therefore  the  High  Court  could  not  have  

passed the impugned order on 11.12.2007 directing the CBI  

to carryout a fresh investigation or reinvestigation into the  

case.  He submitted that the High Court was conscious of  

this limitation on the power of the Court to direct further  

investigation and mentioned in the impugned order dated  

11.12.2007 that if  the challan had been presented to the  

Court,  the  Miscellaneous  Petition  will  stand  as  having  

become infructuous.  He submitted that the impugned order  

passed by the High Court that the investigation of the case  

will be taken up by the CBI was, therefore, bad in law and  

should be set aside by this Court.   

9

10. Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for  

Respondent No.1 (the CBI),  on the other hand, submitted  

that this Court has held in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi  

Administration [(1979)  2  SCC  322]  that  even  where  a  

Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police  

report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the right  

of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and  

the  police  can  exercise  such  right  as  often  as  necessary  

when fresh information came to light.  He also relied on a  

recent decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State   

of Punjab & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 441] wherein this Court has  

sustained the order of the High Court directing investigation  

by the CBI even after the charge sheet had been filed by the  

State  police  on  completion  of  the  investigation.  He  

submitted that in  Nirmal  Singh Kahlon (supra)  this Court  

has clarified that the observations in  Vineet Narain  (supra)  

cited  by  Dr.  Dhawan  are  applicable  to  cases  where  the  

investigation was being  monitored and in such cases the  

monitoring of the High Court will come to an end after the  

charge sheet is filed.  He submitted that in the present case,  

the High Court found that the state police is not a position  

10

to  carry  out  a  fair  and  truthful  investigation  and  has  

directed  the  investigation  by  the  CBI  in  the  interest  of  

justice in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the  

Cr.P.C.   

11. Mr.  Raval  further  submitted  that  pursuant  to  

impugned order of the High Court the CBI has carried out  

the investigation into the cases and the status report of the  

cases is as follows:

S.No. CBI Case No. Local Police Case No. Status of the case 1. RCCHG2007S0031 FIR No. 82,  

dated 18.04.2007 of  P.S. City I, Moga.

1) Investigation completed,  which revealed that a false  rape  case  was  registered  by the Moga Police.   2)  Charge  sheet  has  been  filed under Sections 366-A  and  406  of  the  IPC  and  Sections  4  &  5  of  the  Immoral  Traffic  (Prevention)  Act,  1956  against  two  persons,  namely,  Simran  Kaur  @  Indu  and  Ajay  Kumar  on  10.11.2008.

2. RCCHG2007A0030 FIR No.198, dated 24.10.2007 of  P.S. City I, Moga.

Investigation  completed  and charge sheet has been  filed  in  Court  on  09.11.2009  in  which  the  senior police officers of the  rank  of  SSP  and  SP  are  sought  to  be  prosecuted  after  sanction  from  the  Central Government.  

3. RCCHG2008S0003 FIR No.83,  dated 19.04.2007 of  P.S. City I, Moga.

1) Investigation completed  and charge sheet has been  filed  in  the  Court  on  10.11.2008  against  Ajay  Kumar  and  the  Court  

11

convicted the  accused on  30.09.2009.

2)   Accused  has  filed  an  appeal in the Court of Ld.  Special  Judge,  Punjab,  Patiala and the appeal has  been  dismissed  on  09.02.2011.  Accused has  filed CRR No. 460 of 2011  in the High Court,  which  is pending.

4. RCCHG2008S0001 FIR No.160, dated  04.06.2007  of  P.S. Baghapurana, District Moga

Investigation  completed  and  closure  report  has  been  filed  in  Court  on  10.11.2008 and the Court  has  accepted  the  closure  report on 12.12.2008.  

5. RCCHG2008S0002 FIR No.225,  dated 15.11.2007 of  P. S. Tarawari,  District Karnal  (Haryana)

Investigation  completed  and closure report filed in  the  Court  and  the  same  has  been  accepted  on  03.06.2009.

12. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (8) of Section 173 and Section  

482 of the Cr.P.C. which are relevant for deciding this case  

are quoted herein below:  

“Section 173. Report  of  police  officer  on  completion of investigation –  (1)  Every investigation under this Chapter shall  be completed without unnecessary delay.

(2)(i) As  soon  as  it  is  completed,  the  officer  in  charge  of  the  police  station  shall  forward  to  a  Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the  offence on a police report,  a report in the form  prescribed by the State Government, stating –

(a)the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

12

(c) the names of the persons who appear to  be acquainted with the circumstances of  the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to have been  committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether  he  has  been  released  on  his  bond and, if so, whether with or without  sureties;

(g) whether  he  has  been  forwarded  in  custody under Section 170;

(h) whether  the  report  of  medical  examination  of  the  woman  has  been  attached where investigation relates to an  offence under Section 376, 376A, 376B,  376C or 376D of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) The  officer  shall  also  communicate,  in  such manner as may be prescribed by the  State  Government,  the  action  taken  by  him, to the person, if any, by whom the  information relating to the commission of  the offence was first given.  

x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x  x

(8)   Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to  preclude  further  investigation  in  respect  of  an  offence after a report under Sub-Section (2) has  been  forwarded  to  the  Magistrate  and,  where  upon such an investigation, the officer in charge  of the police station obtains further evidence, oral  or  documentary,  he  shall  forward  to  the  Magistrate a further report or reports regarding  such  evidence  in  the  form prescribed;  and  the  provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far  as  may be,  apply  in  relation to  such report  or  

13

reports  as  they  apply  in  relation  to  a  report  forwarded under sub-section (2)”.  

“Section 482. Saving  of  inherent  power  of  High  Court  –  Nothing  in  this  Code  shall  be  deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of  the High Court to make such orders as may be  necessary to give effect to any order under this  Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any  Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”.

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. provides  

that  every  investigation  by  the  police  shall  be  completed  

without  unnecessary delay and sub-section (2)  of  Section  

173  provides  that  as  soon  as  such  investigation  is  

completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall  

forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the  

offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by  

the  State  Government.   Under  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  

173, a police report (charge sheet or challan) is filed by the  

police  after  investigation  is  complete.   Sub-section  (8)  of  

Section  173  states  that  nothing  in  the  Section  shall  be  

deemed to preclude any further investigation in respect of  

an  offence  after  a  report  under  sub-section  (2)  has  been  

forwarded to the Magistrate.  Thus, even where charge sheet  

or challan has been filed by the police under sub-section (2)  

14

of  Section  173,  the  police  can  undertake  further  

investigation but not fresh investigation or re-investigation  

in respect of an offence under sub-section (8) of Section 173  

of the Cr.P.C.  

14. Section  482  of  the  Cr.P.C.,  however,  states  that  

nothing in the Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect the  

inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as is  

necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to  

prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise  

to secure the ends of  justice.  Thus, the provisions of the  

Cr.P.C. do not limit  or affect the inherent powers of  the  

High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give  

effect to any order under the Court or to prevent the abuse  

of any process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends  

of justice.  The language of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of  

the  Cr.P.C.,  therefore,  cannot  limit  or  affect  the  inherent  

powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section  

482 of the Cr.P.C. for fresh investigation or re-investigation  

if the High Court is satisfied that such fresh investigation or  

re-investigation is necessary to secure the ends of justice.  

15

15.   We find support for this conclusion in the following  

observations of this Court in  Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v.   

State of Gujarat (supra) cited by Mr. Dhawan:   

“13. It  is,  however,  beyond  any  cavil  that  “further  investigation”  and  “reinvestigation”  stand on different footing.  It may be that in a  given situation a superior court in exercise of  its  constitutional  power,  namely,  under  Articles  226  and  32  of  the  Constitution  of  India could direct a “State” to get an offence  investigated and/or further investigated by a  different  agency.  Direction  of  a  reinvestigation,  however,  being  forbidden  in  law, no superior court would ordinarily issue  such  a  direction.   Pasayat,  J.  in  Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar  [(2008) 5  SCC 413] opined as under: (SCC p. 415, para  7)

“7.  At  this  juncture  it  would  be  necessary to take note of Section 173  of the Code.  From a plain reading of  the  above  section  it  is  evident  that  even after  completion  of  investigation  under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of  the  Code,  the  police  has  right  to  further  investigate  under  sub-section  (8),  but  not  fresh  investigation  or  reinvestigation.”

A  distinction,  therefore,  exists  between  a  reinvestigation and further investigation.”

“15. The investigating agency and/or a court  exercise their jurisdiction conferred on them  only in terms of the provisions of the Code.  The  Courts  subordinate  to  the  High  Court  even do not have any inherent power under  Section  482  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

16

Procedure or otherwise.  The pre-cognizance  jurisdiction  to  remand  vested  in  the  subordinate  courts,  therefore,  must  be  exercised  within  the  four  corners  of  the  Code.”

It is clear from the aforesaid observations of this Court that  

the  investigating  agency  or  the  Court  subordinate  to  the  

High Court exercising powers under Cr.P.C. have to exercise  

the powers within the four corners of the Cr.P.C. and this  

would mean that the investigating agency may undertake  

further investigation and the subordinate court may direct  

further investigation into the case where charge sheet has  

been  filed  under  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  173  of  the  

Cr.P.C. and such further investigation will not mean fresh  

investigation or  re-investigation.   But  these  limitations  in  

sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in a case where  

charge sheet has been filed will not apply to the exercise of  

inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the  

Cr.P.C. for securing the ends of justice.   

16.   This  position  of  law  will  also  be  clear  from  the  

decision of  this  Court  in  Nirmal  Singh Kahlon  v.  State  of  

Punjab & Ors. (supra) cited by Mr. Raval.  The facts of that  

case  are  that  the  State  police  had  investigated  into  the  

17

allegations of irregularities in selection of a large number of  

candidates for the post of Panchayat Secretaries and had  

filed a charge sheet against Nirmal Singh Kahlon.  Yet the  

High Court in a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution  

passed orders on 07.05.2003 directing investigation by the  

CBI into the case as it thought that such investigation by  

the  CBI  was  “not  only  just  and proper  but  a  necessity”.  

Nirmal  Singh Kahlon challenged the decision of  the  High  

Court  before  this  Court  contending  inter  alia that  sub-

section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. did not envisage an  

investigation by the CBI after filing of a charge sheet and  

the Court of Magistrate alone has the jurisdiction to issue  

any  further  direction  for  investigation  before  this  Court.  

Amongst  the  authorities  cited  on  behalf  of  Nirmal  Singh  

Kahlon was the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain case  

that once the investigation is over and charge sheet is filed  

the task of the monitoring Court comes to an end.  Yet this  

Court sustained the order of the High Court with inter alia  

the following reasons:  

“63.   The  High  Court  in  this  case  was  not  monitoring  any  investigation.   It  only  desired  that the investigation should be carried out by  an  independent  agency.   Its  anxiety,  as  is  

18

evident from the order dated 3-4-2002, was to  see  that  the  officers  of  the  State  do  not  get  away.  If that be so, the submission of Mr. Rao  that the monitoring of an investigation comes to  an end after  the  charge-sheet  is  filed,  as  has  been held by this  Court  in  Vineet  Narain and  M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India  [(2007) 1 SCC 110], loses all significance”.  

Though the decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v.  

State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) is in the context of the power  

of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the  

above observations will  equally apply to a case where the  

power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is  

exercised to direct investigation of a case by an independent  

agency to secure the ends of justice.   

17. This leads us to the next question whether the High  

Court in the facts of the present case passed the order for  

investigation by the CBI to secure the ends of justice.  The  

reasons  given  by  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  order  

dated 11.12.2007 for directing investigation by the CBI are  

extracted herein below:  

“The Investigating Officer, who is a D.S.P. in  rank, will not be in a position to investigate  the  case  fairly  and  truthfully,  as  senior  functionaries  of  the  State  in  the  Police  Department and political leaders are being  named.   By  this  we  are  not  casting  any  doubts  on  the  investigating  team,  but  it  

19

seems  that  political  and  administrative  compulsions are making it difficult for the  investigating team to go any further to bring  home  the  truth.   Apart  from  revolving  around a few persons who have been named  in the status report, nothing worthwhile is  coming  out  regarding  the  interrogation  of  the  police  officers,  political  leaders  and  others.   The  investigation  seems  to  have  slowed  down  because  of  political  considerations.  

Not less than eight police officials, political  leaders,  Advocates,  Municipal  Councilors  and  number  of  persons  from  the  general  public  have  been  named  in  the  status  report.   We feel  that  justice  would not  be  done to the case, if it stays in the hands of  the  Punjab  Police.   Having  said  this,  we  want to make one thing very clear that the  team  comprising  of  Shri  Ishwar  Chander,  D.I.G, Shri L.K. Yadav, S.S.P. Moga and Shri  Bhupinder  Singh,  D.S.P.  have  done  a  commendable job in unearthing the scam.

We feel it a fit case to be handed over to the  C.B.I.”

On a reading of the reasons given by the High Court, we find  

that the High Court was of the view that the investigating  

officer  even of  the  rank of  DSP was not  in  a position  to  

investigate  the  case  fairly  and  truthfully  because  senior  

functionaries of the State police and political leaders were to  

be  named  and  political  and  administrative  compulsions  

were making it difficult for the investigating team to go any  

20

further to bring home the truth.  It further observed that not  

less than eight police officials, political leaders, advocates,  

municipal  councilors  besides  a  number  of  persons  

belonging to general public had been named in the status  

report of the State local police.  In the peculiar facts and  

circumstances of the case, the High Court felt that justice  

would not be done to the case if the investigation stays in  

the hands of the local police and for these reasons directed  

that the investigation of the case be handed over to the CBI.  

The narration of the facts and circumstances in paragraph  

2, 3, 4 and 5 of this judgment also support the conclusion  

of  the  High  Court  that  investigation  by  an  independent  

agency  such as  the  CBI  was absolutely  necessary  in  the  

interests of justice.  Moreover, even though the High Court  

in  the  impugned  order  dated  11.12.2007  did  make  a  

mention  that  in  case  challan  has  been  filed,  then  the  

petition  will  stand  as  having  become  infructuous  in  the  

order dated 12.12.2007, the High Court has stayed further  

proceedings before the trial court in the case arising out of  

FIR No.82 of P.S. City I, Moga, till further orders.  Thus, the  

High Court was of the view that even though investigation is  

21

complete in one case and charge sheet has been filed by the  

Police, it was necessary in the ends of justice that the CBI  

should carry out an investigation into the case.

18.   In the recent case of State of West Bengal and Others  

v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal   

and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 571] a Constitution Bench of this  

Court, while holding that no Act of Parliament can exclude  

or curtail the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of  

the  Constitution,  has  cautioned  that  the  extra-ordinary  

powers  of  the  High  Court  under  Article  226  of  the  

Constitution must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in  

exceptional  situations  where  it  becomes  necessary  to  

provide credibility and confidence in investigation or where  

the  incident  may  have  national  or  international  

ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for  

doing  complete  justice  and  enforcing  fundamental  rights.  

This caution equally  applies to the cases where the High  

Court exercises inherent powers under Section 482 of the  

Cr.P.C. to direct investigation by the CBI for securing the  

ends of justice.  In the facts and circumstances of this case,  

however, the High Court has held that the state local police  

22

was unable to carry out investigation into the cases and for  

securing  the  ends  of  justice  the  investigation  has  to  be  

handed over to the CBI.  In other words, this was one of  

those extra-ordinary cases where the direction of the High  

Court for investigation by the CBI was justified.

19.   This is, therefore, not a fit case in which we should  

exercise our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution  

and grant  leave  to  appeal.   The Special  Leave Petition  is  

dismissed.  

……………………..J.                                                                (R.V. Raveendran)

……………………..J.                                                                (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, September 02, 2011.     

23