Holding

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the police to investigate, arrest, seize property and file a charge‑sheet, and its order is set aside.

Summary

The case arose from a dispute over a Memorandum of Understanding for the sale of land, after which the respondent lodged an FIR against the appellants for offences under sections 406 and 420 IPC. The police began investigating, but the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking directions for the police to arrest the appellants, seize Rs.2.28 crore and file a charge‑sheet. The High Court, without hearing the appellants, issued such directions, leading to their harassment and forced payment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction, as Section 482 can be invoked only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, not to dictate the manner of investigation. Consequently, the High Court’s order was declared a nullity and set aside. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may, under Section 482 CrPC, direct the police to investigate a cognizable offence in a specific manner, including arrest, seizure of property and filing of a charge‑sheet.
Whether such direction is permissible in the absence of any allegation of dereliction of duty, collusion or abuse of process by the investigating agency.
Whether the parties affected must be given an opportunity of hearing before the High Court exercises its inherent power under Section 482.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 169, s. 170, s. 173(8), s. 190, s. 41, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 406, s. 420

Subjects

Section 482inherent jurisdictionpolice investigationhigh court interferenceabuse of processcriminal procedurearrestseizure of propertycharge sheetjurisdiction

Judgment

[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 441

~-+ D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. A
v.
M.K. MOHAN KRISHNAMACHARI AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1766 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2009
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
-+
s.482 - Power of High Court under s.482 to interfere with c
the investigation - Scope of - Held: It is statutory obligation
and duty of police to investigate into crime and courts normally
ought not to interfere and direct investigating agency to
investigate in a particular manner - Inherent power of court
~ .... cannot to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of D
-j
harassment or persecution - On facts, High Court, without
recording any reason directed police that it was obligatory on
their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seize
property and file charge sheet - Directions were issued in a
casual and mechanical manner without having any regard to
E
the possible consequences that may ensue from such
directions - Exercise of inherent power by High Court
.... ~
ultimately resulted in harassment of appellants - Appellants
were also not given opportunity of hearing - There was as
such no a/legation of dereliction of duty on the part of the
investigating agency - Impugned order liable to be set aside F
- Investigation - Jurisdiction.

On 18.9.2006, IVR Ltd. entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent whereby
respondent agreed to facilitate sale of 600 acres of land G
in favour of IVR Ltd. for valuable consideration of Rs.28
lakhs per acre. It was agreed that IVR Ltd. would retain
Rs.2 lakhs per acre towards security for timely
performance of respondent's obligation under the MOU
441
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A and in case respondent failed to comply with the terms +--"
of MOU, the retention amount accumulated would be
forfeited by IVR.

Respondent could facilitate the transfer of only 64
acres of land in favour of IVR. IVR issued notice to
B
respondent on 15.11.2006, but did not receive any
response. Thereafter IVR entered into two MOUs directly
with the owner~ of the land.

Respondent lodged FIR against the appellants
+
c alleging commission of offences u/ss.406 and 420 IPC.
Police registered the case and commenced investigation.
Respondent filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.
before High Court seeking directions to the police to
seiz~. .r~rn amount of Rs.228 lakhs for facilitating
D registration of 64 acres of land. High Co1.1rt, within one
•
~-
month from the date of filing of petition, finally disposed
of the same observing that it was obligatory on the part
of police to conduct investigation in accordance with law,
including recording of c:;~atements from witnesses, arrest,
E seizure of property, perusal of various documents, filing
of charge sheet. The Court accordingly directed the··
police to expedite and complete the investigation within j.. ... ~
six months.
In appeals to this Court, appellant contended that the
F High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing directions ·
to the investigating agency to act in a particular manner
which is unsustainable.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
G
HELD: 1. There was no allegation of dereliction of
duty on the part of the investigating agency. There was
also no allegation of any collusion and deliberate delay
on the part of the investigating agency in the matter of
H
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 443
KRISHNAMACHARI

investigation into the case that was promptly registered A
on the information lodged by the respondent The petition
almost reads like a civil suit for recovery of the money.
The petition was filed within one week of registration of
the crime by which time the police had already started
serious investigation. None of the appellants were B
impleaded as party respondents to the petition filed
under Section 482 Cr.P .C. The State represented by its
Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, alone was
impleaded as the respondent. The investigating agency
in its counter filed in the High Court stated that after c
obtaining necessary legal opinion, a case was registered
and 'commenced the investigation'. It is also stated in
categorical terms that the police had "inquired all the
connected witnesses, recorded their statements and also
collected the material documents and confirmed
0
commission of cognizable offences by all the accused.
[Para 11] [454-F-H; 455-A-D]
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18; State
of West Bengal v. S. N. Basak (1963) 2 SCR 52; State of
Bhihar & Anr. v. J.A. C. Saldanha & Ors. (1980) 2 SCR 16; E
M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India & Ors.
(2007) 1 sec 11 o, relied on.

2. The saving of the High Court's inherent power is
designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is _F
that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.
It is unfortunate that it is the exercise of the inherent
power by the High Court in this case that had ultimately
resulted in harassment of the appellants as is evident G
from the subsequent events. Pursuant to the impugned
order, the investigating authorities approached the
appellant No.1 took him into custody and exhibited him
on television channel. The police demanded to pay an
H
•.·

444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
.
A amount of Rs.2~2s crores and threatened that he would . A:
t·
be arrested if he fails to comply with their demand.
Accordingly, the appellants paid Rs.10 lakhs in cash in
the police station itself and issued a cheque for an
amount of Rs.2.18 cores. However, the cheque was. not
B encashed on account of the instructions to the bank to
stop the payment in view of the interim order dated 4th
May, 2007 of this Court. The police offered explanation
stating that the matter was settled voluntarily between -··
the parties and therefore, the accused were not arrested +
c that remanded
and to custody. It is difficult to buy the idea
there was a settlement between the parties in the
police station. It is not difficult to discern as to how and
under what circumstances the appellants agreed to pay
the amounts and also issued a cheque. It is not known
as to how and under what authority the police could ...
D
intervene and settle any disputes between the parties. It -~
is needless to observe that the police have no such
authority or duty of settling disputes. [Para 15] [456-D-H;
457-A-B]
E M.C. Abraham & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(2003) 2 sec 649 relied on.
).. ~-<
3. The duty of t~e Court in such proceedings is to
ensure that the agencies do their duties in compliance
F with law. The inherent power of the High Court is saved
to interfere with the proceedings pending before a
Criminal Court if such interference is required to secure
the ends of justice or where the continuance of the
proceedings before a Court amounts to abuse of the
process of Court. Such a power under .Section 482
G Cr.P .C. is always avail~ble to the High Court in relation
4
to a matter pending before a criminal Court. [Para 20]
[ 459-G-H; 460-A]

4. The High Court, in the instant case, did not even
H advert to the relevant facts. As stated in the order itself,
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 445
KRISHNAMACHARI

it was more guided by the arguments made across the A
~~ Bar that the police did not take any steps to arrest the
persons and seize the amounts involved in this case
from the appellants though there is no such factual
foundation as such laid in the petition. It altogether
ignored the counter filed by the police that the police had 8
already examined ten witnesses within a short span of
time after the registration of crime and recorded their
statements. The High Court, without recording any
reason whatsoever, directed the police that it was
-~
obligatory on their part to record statements from c
witnesses, arrest, seizure of property and filing of charge
. sheet. It is difficult to discern as to how such directions
resulting in far reaching consequences could have been
issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
,"'\
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court interfered with D
the investigation of crime which is within the exclusive
+ domain of the police by virtually directing the police to
investigate the case from a particular angle and take
certain steps which the police depending upon the
evidence collected and host of other circumstances may E,
or may not have attempted to take any such steps in its
discretion. It is not necessary that every investigation
should result in arrest, seizure of the property and
't ~
ultimately in filing of the charge sheet. The police, in
exercise of its statutory power coupled with duty, upon
investigation of a case, may find that a case is made out F I

requiring it to file charge sheet or may find that no case
. as such is made out. The jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code conferred on the High Court has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only
where such exercise is justified by the test laid down in G I

the provision itself. [Para 21] [460-B-G]

5. Yet another aspect of the matter, the appellants
were not impleaded as party respondents in the criminal
H
.446 SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
"
A petition in which the whole of the allegations are levelled
against them. The High Court never thought it fit to put t -··':-
the appellants on notice before issuing appropriate
directions to the police to arrest, seize the property and
file charge sheet. [Para 22] [460-H; 461-A-B]
B
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kera/a & Ors. (2008) 3
sec 542, relied on.
6. The High Court in the present case, without
realizing the consequences, issued directions in a casual 4-
- ·]
c and mechanical manner without hearing the appellants.
The impugned order is a nullity and liable to be set aside ...
only on that score. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. )

can be exercised by the High Court either suo motu or
on an application (i) to secure the ends of justice; (ii) the
D High Court may make such orders as may be necessary /oo. •

to give effect to any order Under the Code; (iii) to prevent ,\-
abuse of the process of any Court. There is no other
ground on which th"e High Court may exercise its inherent
power. The High Court did not record any reasons
E whatsoever why: and for what reasons, the matter
required its interference. The High Court is not expected
t-
to make any casual observations without having any \
.., ,,,,_ I
regard to the possibl~ consequences that may ensue }- .
from such observations. Observations coming from the "-

higher Courts may· have their own effect of influencing ~
F
the course.of events and process of law. For that reason,
no uncalled
,.+·.-._..... ,
for observations are to be made while
disposing,,ofthe matters and that too without hearing the
persons li~ely to be affected. The case on hand is itself ,Ii.
a classic illustration as to how such observations could 1'

G I-
result in drastic and consequences of far reaching in
-+
/,. .
nature. [Paras 23 and 24] [461-E-F; 462-A-E]
~

D.K. Basu v.. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416;
lnder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors.
H
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 447
KRISHNAMACHARI
- -+ (2007) 12 SCC 1; Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. A
Ravishankar Prasad & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 351,
distinguished.

Case Law Reference:

AIR 1945 PC 18 relied on Para 2 B
(1963) 2 SCR 52 relied on Para 4
...
(1980) 2 SCR 16 relied on Para 5

c2001) 1 sec 11 o relied on Para 6
c
(2003) 2 sec 649 relied on Para 16

c2008) 3 sec 542 relied on Para 22

(1997) 1 sec 416 distinguished Para 25
+ c2001) 12 sec 1 distinguished Para 25
D

(2009) 6 sec 351 distinguished Para 25

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1766 of 2009. E

.. ~ From the Judgment & Order dated 5.4.2007 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 6194 of 2007.

WITH
F
Crl. A.No. 1767 of 2009.

Uday U. Lalit, A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, N.G.
Govindarajalu, Avishek Kumar Lal, S. Mahendran, P.V.
Yogeswaran, R.N. Upadya, K.V. Mohan, S. Thananjayan for the
+ appearing parties. G

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. A short question that
arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether it is H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A open to the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under t-
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with
the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable
offence? If such a power is available with the Court, what are
the parameters for its interference?
B 2. It is well settled and this Court time and again, reiterated
that the police authorities have the statutory right and duty to
investigate into a cognizable offence under the scheme of
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). This Court,
on more than one occasion, decried uncalled for interference
c by the Courts into domain of investigation of crimes by police
in discharge of their statutory functions. The principle has been
succinctly stated way back in Emperor V. Khwaja Nazir
Ahmad1 and the same has been repeatedly quoted with
respect and approval. The Privy Council observed that "just as
D 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
E their province and into which the law imposes upon them the
duty of enquiry".
>- . .
3. The Privy Council further observed:

"In India as has been shown there is a statutory right on
F 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
G exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Courf. 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
H 1. Air 1945 PC 18.
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 449
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

':'"' t obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, A
always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to
intervene in an appropriate case when moved under
Section 491, Criminal P.C. to give directions in the nature
of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however,
the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred B
before it and not until then. It has sometimes been thought
... that Section 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 c
.... 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." D
-J..
(emphasis sup.plied)

4. In State of West Bengal V. S. N. Basak, 2 a Division
Bench of three Judges of this Court, while referring to the
observations of the Privy Council referred to hereinabove, E

'.
observed:

~ "With this interpretation, which has been put on the
statutory duties and powers of the police and of the powers
of the Court, we are in accord."
F
and it was further held:

"The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code. Section 154 which
is in that Chapter deals with information in cognizable G
offences and Section 156 with investigation into such
offences and under these sections the police has the
statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any
alleged cognizable offence ... and this statutory power of
2. (1963) 2 SCR 52. H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the
exercise of power under Section 439 or under the inherent
power of the court under Section 561A of Criminal
Procedure Code".

8 This Court, having found that the High Court had exceeded its
jurisdiction in interfering with the investigation, interfered with
the orders of the High Court by allowing the appeal preferred
by the State.

5. In State of Bhihar & Anr. V. J.A.C. Saldanha & Ors3., a
C. three Judge Bench, speaking through Desai, J., after referring
the precedents including Khwaza Nazir Ahmad, held:

"There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity
in the field of crime detection and crime punishment.
D 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
E
committed it is its bounden duty to investigate into the
offe.nce 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
F 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
G 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

H 3. (1980) 2 SCR 16.
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 451
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDD)'.', J.]

-- t its report to the Court, and to award adequate punishment A
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 B
Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [1944] LR. 71 IA 203.

-+
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
c

cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by
,,,..
the judiciary."
-/L D
6. M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) V. Union of India &
Ors. 4 was a public interest litigation in which this Court, after
noticing the precedents, held that when a cognizable offence
is reported to the police, they may after investigation take action
under Section 169 or Section 170 of the Code. If the officer-
in-charge of the police station forms an opinion that there is no E
.. -...\ sufficient evidence against the accused, the officer-in-charge
may, under Section 169 of the Code, release the accused from
custody or, if the officer forms an opinion that there is sufficient
evidence, he may, under Section 170 of the Code, forward the
accused to a competent Magistrate. After analyzing the earlier F
judgments, this Court observed:

... that there is a clear-cut and well-demarcated sphere of
activities in the field of crime detection and crime
punishment. Investigation of an. offence is the field reserved G
for the executive through the police department, the
superintendence over which vests in the State
Government. The executive is charged with a duty to keep

4. c2001) 1 sec 110. H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A vigilance over law and order situation. It is obliged to
prevent crime. If an offence is committed allegedly, it is the t~
State's duty to investigate into the offence and bring the
offender to book. Once it investigates through the police
department and finds an offence having been committed,
B it is its duty to collect evidence for the purposes of proving
the offence. Once that is completed, the investigating
officer submits report to the court requesting the court to
take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C
and his duty comes to an end." ~

c 7. Now, we shall revert to the facts of the case in order to
consider whether the High Court properly applied the settled
legal position to the facts of the case .
-
. On 18th September, 2006, M/s IVR Prime Urban
....
D Developers Ltd. ('IVR' for short) entered into a Memorandum
~
of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent herein wherein it
was agreed upon by the respondent that he would facilitate the
sale of about 600 acres of land situated at Sandavellor village
of Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu in favour of IVR for a
E valuable consideration of Rs.28 lakhs per acre. It was mutually
agreed upon between the parties that IVR would retain an
amount of Rs.2 lakh per acre towards security for timely
performance of respondent's obligation under the MOU. The >-- ,
completion of the sale of the said land was to be done in two
phases. The first phase for an extent of 450 acres was required
F
to be completed before 31st November, 2006 and the second
phase of remaining 150 acres on or before 28th February,
2007. The respondent agreed to arrange and facilitate
registration of sale deeds of a minimum of 75 acres per week
in favour of IVR. The respondent had also undertaken the
G obligation to collect and deliver all the relevant documents and
~
records concerning the said lands as required by IVR for
registration of the sale deeds. It was further agreed upon that
the retention amount accumulated to be forfeited by IVR on
failure to comply with the terms of the MOU by the respondent.
H
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M. K. MOHAN 453
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

... .. The MOU further provided that the same shall be cancelled by A
IVR if it was convinced that the respondent was unable to
perform his part of the obligation under the MOU.

8. On realizing that the respondent could facilitate the
transfer of only 64 acres of land in favour of IVR out of the huge B
chunk of the land, IVR got issued legal notice to the respondent
on 15th November, 2006, calling upon him to facilitate and
complete the sale of 450 acres of land within the agreed
timeframe. Since there was no response to the legal notice, IVR
terminated the MOU on 30th November, 2006 and also forfeited
the retention amount in terms of the MOU.
c
,
9. Thereafter, IVR entered into two MOUs with the owners
of the land and Mis Altirven Steels Limited for purchase of 330
.....
acres and 200 acres of land respectively. This is the same land
which the first respondent had undertaken to facil!tate the sale D
i in favour of IVR. It is stated that pursuant to the said MOUs, IVR
has completed purchase of 346 acres of land by paying a total
sale consideration of Rs.121.35 crores.

10. On 12th January, 2007, the respondent herein lodged
E
first information with the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime
Branch, Tamilnadu against the appellants alleging commission
~ -" of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and the same was registered on 26th February,
2007 in FIR No. 93 of 2007. It is not necessary for the purpose
F
of disposal of these appeals to notice the details of allegations
leveled in the said First Information Report as we propose not
to make any comment or observation which may hamper
further pending proceedings. The police, having registered the
case against the appellants had commenced its investigation.
Even while the investigation was in progress, for some G
inexplicable reasons, the respondent moved the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code, in Criminal Original Petition
No. 6194 of 2007 seeking directions to the police to seize an
amount of Rs.2,28,00,000/- from the appellants claiming that
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A he was entitled for an amount of Rs.1,28,00,000/- for facilitating ...
the registration of 64 acres of land under the MOU which i
amount· is alleged to have been withheld by the appellants
together with a sum of Rs.1 crore which is stated to have been
paid by him to the appellants. The petition filed in the High Court
B makes an interesting reading in which it was stated that the
following questions arise for the consideration of the High Court:

A. Whether the accused have not committed serious
cognizable offences?
+
c B. Whether the termination of MOU is legally and
morally correct?

C. Whether the petitioner had not sustained a huge
monetary loss of Rs.5 crores, which was invested
D in the said project? "'
-\-
D. Is it not the duty of the respondent police to seize
the petitioner's money of Rs.1,28,00,000/- from
accused Nos. 1 to 3?

E E. Is it not the duty of the respondent police to seize
the petitioner's money of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from
accused Nos. 4 to 6?
}- .,
F. Whether the claim of accused Nos. 1 to 3 that the
petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores as
F
liquidated damages is justified?

11. Be it noted, that there is no allegation of dereliction of
any duty on the part of the investigating agency. There is also
no allegation of any collusion and deliberate delay on the part
G of the investigating agency in the matter of investigation into·
the case that has been promptly registered on the information
lodged by the respondent. The petition almost reads like a civil
suit for recovery of the money. As· noted hereinabove, the
petition has been filed within one week of registration of the
H crime by which time the police had already started serious
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 455
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

investigation as is evident from the material available on record . A
...
~
It is also required to notice that none of the appellants have
been impleaded as party respondents to the petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code. The State represented by its Sub
Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai
alone was impleaded as the respondent. The investigating B
agency in its counter filed in the High Court stated that after
obtaining necessary legal opinion, a case was registered and
'commenced the investigation'. It is also stated in categorical
-+ terms that the police had "inquired all the connected witnesses,
recorded their statements and also collected the material c
documents and confirmed commission of cognizable offences
by all the accused". The High Court, within a period of one
month from the date of filing of the petition, finally disposed of
the same observing that "it is obligatory on the part of the
~
respondent police to conduct investigation in accordance with
/
D
~ law, including recording of statements from witnesses, arrest,
seizure of property, perusal of various documents, filing of
charge sheet. It is also needless to state that if any account is
available with the accused persons, or any amount is in their
possession and any account is maintained in Natinoalised
E
Bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to
take all necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the
--!- ..... aggrieved persons in this case." The Court accordingly
directed the police to expedite and complete the investigation
within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals. F

12. Shri Uday U. Lalit, learned senior advocate appearing
for the appellants, submitted that the impugned order suffers
from serious and incurable infirmities requiring interference of
this Court. The respondent virtually sought to recover the G'
.t amounts from the appellants in a proceeding filed under
Section 482 of the Code which is impermissible in law. It was
further submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction
in issuing directions to the investigating agency to act in a
particular manner which is unsustainable.
H'

..
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 13. Mr. K.V. Mohan, the learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, supported the order and -.f "
submitted that the High Court rightly interfered in the matter in
the interest of justice.

14. The question that arises for our consideration is
B
whether the contents of the petition sub'!litted by the respondent
reveal any cause for issuing directions guiding the Investigating
Officer in the matter of exercise of statutory power and duty to
investigate into crime that had already been registered and
investigation was actually in progress? Whether such a
c direction could have been issued by the High Court in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code?

15. ltis too fairly well settled and needs no restatement at
our hands that the saving of the High Court's inherent power is
D designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a
Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into ~
a weapon of harassment or persecution. It is unfortunate that it
is the exercise of the inherent power by thP, High Court in this
case that had ultimately resulted in harassment of the appellants
E as is evident from the subsequent events. Pursuant to the
impugned order, the investigating authorities have approached ,,
the appellant No.1 (in S.L.P (Crl) No. 3269 of 2007), took him
into custody and exhibited him on television channel. The police >- ;\-
have demanded to pay an amount of Rs.2,28,00,000/- and
F threatened that he would be arrested if he fails to comply with
. their demand. Accordingly, the appellants have paid Rs.10
lakhs in cash in the police station itself and issued a cheque
for an amount of Rs.2.18 coresdrawn on Tamilnadu Mercantile ,.
Bank. However, the. cheque was not encashed on account of
the instructions to the bank to stop the payment in view of the
G
interim order dated 4th May, 2007 of this Court. The police
~·
offered explanation stating that the matter was settled
voluntarily between the parties and therefore, the accused were
not arrested and remanded to custody. It is difficult to buy this
idea that there was a settlement between the parties in the
H
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 457
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

police station. It is not difficult to discern as to how and under A
...'
f
~
what circumstances the appellants may have agreed to pay the
amounts and also issued a cheque. It is not known as to how
and under what authority the police could intervene and settle
any disputes between the parties. It is needless to observe that
the police have no such authority or duty of settling disputes. B
'16. It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to
investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to
interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what
manner the investigation has to proceed. In M.C. Abraham &
Anr. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors5 ., this Court observe~:
c
"Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides

- ~
for arrest by a police officer without an order from a
Magistrate and without a warrant. The section gives
discretion to the police officer who may, without an order D
from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, arrest any
person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is
open to him, in the course of investigation, to arrest any
person who has been concerned with any cognizable
offence or against whom reasonable complaint has been E
made or credible information has been received, or a
# reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so
,-1.,
concerned. Obviously, he is not expected to act in a
mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused
as soon as the report is lodged. In appropriate cases, F
after some investigation, the investigating officer may
make up his mind as to whether it is necessary to arrest
the accused person. At that stage the court has no role to
play. Since the power is discretionary, a police officer is
not always bound to arrest an accused even if the
G
•"'- allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable
offence. Since an arrest is in the nature of an
encroachment on the liberty of the subject and does affect
the reputation and status of the citizen, the power has to
--...;_
2. (2003) 2 sec 649. H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A be cautiously exercised. It depends inter alia upon the --1
nature of the offence alleged and the type of persons who
are accused of having committed the cognizable offence.
Obviously, the power has to be exercised with caution and
circumspection. n
B
17. It is further observed:
/

"The 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
c agency may submit a report finding the allegations
substantiated. It is also open to the inve~tigating agency
to submit a report finding no material to support the

D
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 0 1.1t for prosecution, it is open to the
E 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."
F 18. This Court while observing that it was not appropriate
for the High Court to issue a direction that the case should not
only be investigated but a charge sheet must be submitted,
held:

G "In our view the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
~-
making this direction which deserves to be set aside.
While it is open to the High Court, in appropriate cases,
to give directions for prompt investigation etc. the High
Court cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a
H report that is in accord with its views as that would amount
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 459
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

.. ¥
to unwarranted interference with the investigation of the
case by inhibiting the exercise of statutory power by the
A

investigating agency."

(emphasis is of ours)

19. It is worthwhile to notice that the directions in the said B
case were issued by the High Court of Bombay in writ petition
filed in public interest in which a grievance has been made that
. though the Provident Fund Commissioner has lodged a
-+ complaint against several Directors, the investigation has made
no progress on account of the fact that the Directors were c
Government servants and enjoying considerable influence. The
High Court issued series of directions which were challenged
in this Court contending that the High Court was in error in
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
.lo.
resulting in unjustified interference of the investigation of the D
~
case. It is, therefore, clear that if the High Court, in exercise of
its power under Article 226 of the. Constitution of India, cannot
direct the investigating agency to investigate the case in accord
with its views as that would amount to unwarranted interference,
equally no such directions could be issued in exercise of E
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
,,., .... 20. Tested in the light of the principles aforesaid, the
impugned order, in our considered opinion, must be held to be
an order passed overstepping the limits of judicial interference.
It was observed by this Court on more than one occasion, that F
even in Public Interest Litigation proceedings, appropriate
directions may be issued and the purpose in issuing such
directions is essentially to ensure performance of statutory duty
by the investigating agency. The duty of the Court in such
proceedings is to ensure that the agencies do their duties in G'
compliance with law. The inherent power of the High Court is
saved to interfere with the proceedings pending before a
Criminal Court if such interference is required to secure the
ends of justice or where the continuance of the proceedings
before a Court amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Such H
... _

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R.

A a power under Section 482 of the Code is always available to ~~

--1
the High Court in relation to a matter pending before a criminal
Court.

21. The High Court, in the instant case, did not even advert
to the relevant facts. As stated in. the order itself, it was more
B
guided by the arguments made across.the Bar that the police
has not taken any steps to arrest the persons and seize the
amounts involved in this case from the appellants though there ..,
is no such factual foundation as such laid in the petition. It has -+.
altogether ignored the counter filed by the police that the police
c had already examined ten witnesses within a short span of time
after the registration of crime and recorded their statements.
The High Court, without recording any reason whatsoever,
directed the police that it is obligatory on their part to record
statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property and filing A

D of charge sheet. It is difficult to discern as to how such directions ~
'
resulting in far reaching consequences could have been issued
by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code. The High Court interfered with the
investigation of crime which is within the exclusive domain of
E the police by virtually directing the police to investigate the case
from a particular angle and take certain steps which the police
depending upon the evidence collected and host of other
circumstances may or may not have attempted to take any such
>- '--
steps in its discretion. It is not necessary that every investigation
F should result in arrest, seizure of the property and ultimately in
filing of the charge sheet. The police, in exercise of its statutory t-
power coupled with duty, upon investigation of a case, may find
that a case is made out requiring it to file charge sheet or may
find that no case as such is made out. It needs no reiteration
G that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code conferred
on the High Court has to be exercised sparingly, carefully a_nd ~

with caution only where such exercise is justified by the test laid
down in the provision itself.
•,

22. Yet another aspect of the matter, the appellants have
H
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 461
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.)
~
t- not been impleaded as party respondents in the criminal A
petition in which the whole of the allegations are levelled against
them. The High Court never thought it fit to put the appellants
on notice before issuing appropriate directions to the police to
arrest, seize the property and file charge sheet. This Court in
Divine Retreat Centre V. State of Kera/a & Ors. 6 observed: B

.... "We are concerned with the question as to whether the
High Court could have passed a judicial order directing
-4- 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
c
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
'~
1 a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person
i likely to be affected by such order and particularly when D
such' order results in drastic consequences of affecting
one's own reputation. n

(emphasis is of ours)
E
23. The High Court in the present case, without realizing
•. i' the consequences, issued directions in a casual and
~
mechanical manner without hearing the appellants. The
impugned order is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on
that score.
F
24. We are not impressed by the submission made by the
learned counsel for the respondent that the High Court did not
issue any directions but merely disposed of the petition with
the observations reminding the police of its duty. The question
'
,,_t that arises for consideration is whether there was any occasion G
or necessity to make those "observations" even if they are to
be considered to be observations and not any directions. It is
not even remotely suggested that there was any deliberate
inaction or failure in the matter of discharge of duties by the
6. c2ooa) 3 sec 542. H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~
A police. There was no allegation of any subversion of processes i
of law facilitating the accused to go scot-free nor there is any
finding as such recorded by the High Court in its order. The
power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the
High Court either suo motu or on an application (i) to secure
B the ends of justice; (ii) the High Court may make such orders
as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the
Code; (iii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. There
is no other ground on which the High Court may exercise its
....l
~
inherent power. In the present case, the High Court did not
c record any reasons whatsoever why and for what reasons, the
matter required its interference. The High Court is not expected
to make any casual o~servations without having any regard to
the possible consequences that may ensue from such
observations. Observations coming from the higher Courts may
have their own effect of influencing the course of events and ·"
D ~
process of law. For that reason, no uncalled for observations
are to be made while disposing of the matters and that too
without hearing the persons likely to be affected. The case on
hand is itself a classic illustration as to how such observations
could result in drastic and consequences of far reaching in
E nature. We wish to say no more.

25. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on >- \....
the decision of this Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengaf
in support of his submission that the police is entitled to arrest
F and seize property in exercise of their power under the Code.
We fail to appreciate the relevancy of that decision to decide
the case on hand. We are equally unable to appreciate the
relevancy-of the decisions in lnder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v.
State of Uttaranchal & Ors. 8 and Central Bureau of
9
G Investigation v. A. Ravishankar Prasad & Ors. Those are not
the cases where any directions were issued in exercise of

7. (1997), 1 sec 416.
8. (2001) 12 sec 1.
H 9. (2009) s sec 351.
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 463
KRISHNAMACHARI [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

"' )- jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to the police in the A
manner in which the High Court did in this case. We find that
none of the decisions upon which reliance has been placed by
the learned counsel for the respondent has any bearing on the
questions that had arisen for our consideration in these
appeals. B
26. Before parting with the case, we may, however,
observe that the observations made in this order and the order
" -+ passed by the High Court shall have no bearing whatsoever on
the pending proceedings which shall go on in accordance with
law.
c
27. For the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to_ sustain
the impugned judgment of the High Court.
.. ,.J.
Leave granted. The appeals are accordingly allowed and D
the impugned order is set aside.
D.G. Appeals allowed.