Holding

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction; it cannot direct a change of investigating officer or constitute a Special Investigation Team on the basis of anonymous or unverified allegations without a prima facie case, and such directions violate natural justice.

Summary

A female remand prisoner alleged sexual exploitation by the head of Divine Retreat Centre and complained of police bias. The High Court, acting suo motu on a petition addressed to a single judge and an anonymous letter, ordered the withdrawal of the police investigation of the rape case and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the matter and other alleged offences. The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot, under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226, direct a change of investigating officer or appoint an SIT on the basis of vague, unverified allegations without a prima facie finding, as such action violates the principles of natural justice and exceeds the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The Court also ruled that an anonymous petition cannot be treated as a public‑interest litigation and that the appellant has locus to challenge the order. Consequently, the High Court’s directions were set aside and the matter was remitted to the original investigating officer with a direction to submit a report under the Code.

Issues considered

The power of a High Court to direct investigation or appoint a Special Investigation Team under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 on the basis of anonymous petitions.
Whether the High Court can replace the investigating officer in the middle of an investigation.
The validity of entertaining an anonymous petition addressed to a single judge and treating it as a Public Interest Litigation.
The locus standi of Divine Retreat Centre to challenge the High Court order.
Whether the High Court’s directions violated the principles of natural justice by not giving notice to the affected party.
The scope and limits of the inherent jurisdiction conferred by Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 156(3), s. 157, s. 173, s. 190, s. 200, s. 227, s. 228, s. 239, s. 240, s. 482
Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 226
Prevention of Corruption Acts. Section 17

Subjects

inherent jurisdictionSection 482 CrPCArticle 226anonymous petitionpublic interest litigationnatural justiceinvestigationspecial investigation teamlocus standicriminal procedure

Judgment

l J
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 701

DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE A
).
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 200.8)
MARCH 11, 2008
B
.[S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.)

... Jurisdiction:
~
Jurisdiction of High Court- Qua registration of crime and
investigation -Anonymous petition to High Court, addressed c
to a named Judge - AHeging commission of crime against a
particular victim and allegations in general made against an
institution - Initiation. of proceedings Suo motu - Further
withdrawing the investigation of the case in re$pect of the
particular victim from the Investigating Officer and entrusting D
the same to Special Investigation Team - Direction to Special
!fJvestigation Team also to investigate in respect of general
~
. allegations wherefor no complaint lodged - On appeal, held:
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction either u/s 482 Cr. P. C.
or under ArtiC/e 226 of Constitution, cannot direct investigation E
by' constituting a Special Investigation Team on the strength
of wild_ a/legations in anonymous petitions without forming any
prima facie opinion in respect of those a/legations - Direction
of investigation into a/legations in respect of which no

.. ., complaint lodged, is violative of principles of natural justice - F
Neither of the parties entitled to choose their own investigating
agency ..... The power to investigate must be exercised strictly
on the comiition of which that power is granted-Investigation-
Principles of Natural Justice- Code of Criminal Procedure,
s.
1973- 48- Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 2262.
G
Ju._risdiction of High Court under Article 226 of
-. Constitution vis;_a-vis s. 482 Cr.PC. - Held: The remedies
0

.,., 1
. available underArticle 226 are neither echoed nor transplanted
info s. 482 - Powers under both the provisions operate in
701 H
.,,
\ )

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A different fields - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
l,
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482 - Inherent
power under -Nature and scope of - Discussed.
._
B Practice and Procedure: Jc
Letter Petition - Entertaining of- By Constitutional Courts
- Procedure - Held: Individual Judges not to entertain
communications and letters personally addressed to them ~ ...
unless the same is allocated to him by the Chief Justice - All
c petitions invoking jurisdiction of the court must be addressed
to the entire court and not to any individual judge - Epistolary
Jurisdiction.
Anonymous petitions - Addressed to a named Judge -
.) Held: Suo motu proceedings Cannot be initiated thereon .
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Scope of -
Interference with the Investigation - Held: Such power to be
exercised in rarest of rare cases where non-compliance with
the provisions of chapter XII of Cr.P. C. - Even in such cases,
E High Court cannot direct as to how the investigation is to be
concluded.
Locus Standi - Anonymous petition before High Court -
Registration of case - Director of the Institution impleaded as
party-accused - High Court directing investigation by Special
F Investigation Team - Locus standi of the institution to challenge J.
the order of High Court - Held: The institution had the locus 'f
since the a/legations in the petition were against the institution
and since its Director was impleaded as party - Constitution
of India, 1950-Article 136.
G
Public Interest Litigation - Entertainment of - When -
Held: A Public Interest Litigation can be entertained only at
the instance of bonafide litigant - An anonymous petition
cannot be treated as Public Interest Litigation as there is no
H way to verify its bonafide- Suo motu action initiated cannot be
',
i
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 703
& ORS.

treated as the one in Public Interest Litigation. A

A female remand prisoner, sent a petition to District
Judge alleging that while she was taking shelter in the
appellant-institution, she was molested and exploited by
the head of the institution and that she became pregnant.
When she came out of the institution, she was implicated 8
in false theft case and lodged in jail. District Judge
forwarded the petition to the Magistrate and also to the
'High Court. The Magistrate ordered investigation into the
matter. Subsequently, a case (Crime No.381 of 2005) was
registered u/s. 376(g) IPC. The petition was placed before C
the High Court, and investigation was directed. A
s·ubsequent petition sent by the prisoner to High Court
was also placed in the same file. High Court on 22.12.2005
closed the matter. District Judge received a petition dated
26.10.2005 addressed to one of the Judges of High Court. D
The petition alleged the incident of the female prisoner
and also mentioned about many other unnatural deaths
for which the appellant-institution was alleged to be
responsible. Violations of foreign exchange were also
alleged against the appellant. It was also alleged that E
proper investigation was not being done in the case of
the female prisoner. District Judge forwarded the petition
to the Judge of the High Court to whom the petition was
addressed. The matter was placed before him. The High
Court opined that the petition of the female prisoner F
addressed to High Court praying for proper investigation
should have been treated as a separate petition and the
same should have been clubbed with the anonymous
petition. The court issued direction to register the case
as a suo motu case. The case was accordingly registered, G
duly impleading the persons against whom accusations
were made. The Court by his final order directed
withdrawal of investigation of Crime No. 381 of 2005 from
the Investigating Officer and entrusting the same to a
Special Investigating Team. The court directed the Special
H
704 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS
. [2008) 4 S.C.R.

A Investigation Team also to inquire into the allegations of
unnatural deaths, allegations of foreign exchan·ge
violations and any·other cognizable offence about which
ttie team gets information. · · · ·
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended
8 interalia that High Court did not ·have jurisdiction u/s 482
Cr.P.C. to order investigation into any case by the police;
that such directions could not have been issued even in ·.
Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India; and that in neither of the petitions
C irregularity in the matter of investigation was disclosed.
Respondent contended interalia that the appellant
had no .locus to challenge the order of the High Court in
as much as it was not ari accused in any criminal case;
and that even the accused had no right of hearing until
0
filing of a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. ·
Allowing the appeal, the Court
I

HELD: 1.1 The High Court in exercise of its inherent
E 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
particularJy on the basis of complaints or anonymous
petitions addressed to a. named Judge. Such
communications cannot be converted into suo motu
F proceedings for setting the law in motion. Neither the
accused nor ttJe complainant or informant are entitled to
choose their own investigating agency to investigate a
crime in which they may be interested. [Para 34] [728-C-D]
G Emperor vs. Khwaja Na~irAhmad AIR ~945 P.C.18; S.N.
Sharma vs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors. 1970 (1) S.C.C. 653;
State of Bihar and An..r. vs. J.A. C. Saldanha and Ors. 1980 (1)
S.C.C. 554; M. C. Abraham and Anr. vs: State or: Maharashtra
and Ors. 2003 (2) S.C.C. 649; State of West Benga/vs. S.N.
H Basak 1963 (2) S.C.R.52; Ha~ari Lal Gupta vs. Rameshwar
.-... r"',,
'
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 705
& ORS.

Prasad and Anr. Etc. 1972 (1) S.C.C. 452; Nirmaljit Singh A
Hoon vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr. 1973 (3) S.C.C.
753; State of WB. and Ors. vs. Sujit Kumar Rana 2004 (4)
sec 129 - relied on.
State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Ors. 1977 (2)
S.C.C.699; Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar 8
Srivastava, /AS and Anr. 2006 (7) SCC 188; Popular Muthiah
vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police 2006 (7) SCC
296 - held inapplicable.
1.2 High Court cannot set the law in- motion against c
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,
0
which cannot lightly be undertaken by the High Court
even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of lnclia. The High Court in exercise of its
whatsoever jurisdiction cannot direct investigation by
constituting a Special Investigation Team on the strength E
of anonymous petitions. The High Courts cannot be
converted into Station Houses. [Para 43] [734-B-0]
1.3 High Co.urt initiated suo motu proceedings without
even examining as to whether the contents of the-
anonymous letter and material sent along witb it disclosed F
any prima facie case for ordering .an investigation. 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 r'gard to those G
allegations. [Paras 40 and 42] [731-C; 733-G]

.
1 4 It is evident from Sections 154, 156 and 157 Cr.P.C.
,. .
that even a police officer can not act on the basis of
information received or otherwise and proceed to
investigate provid~d he has reason to suspect the H
\ I

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A commission of a cognizable offence which he is
empowered to investigate under Section 156 Cr.P.C.
[Para 43) [733-H; 734-A]
1.5 The investigation of an offence is the field
exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers
8 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 Cr.P.C. However, unfettered discretion does
not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and
C act according to one's own choice. The power to
investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition of
which that power is granted by Cr.P.C. itself. [Para 33)
[727-H; 728-A-B]
1.6 There is nothing like unlimited arbitrary
0
jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C .. 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.
Section 482 does not confer any new power on the High
E Court but only saves the inherent power which the court
possessed before the enactment of Cr.P.C .. There are
three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction
may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order
under Cr.P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court,
F and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. [Para 22)
[723-E-G]
Kurukshetra University vs. State of Haryana 1977 (4)
S.C.C. - relied on
G 1.7 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
H Officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in rarest
\ I

DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 707
& ORS.

of the rare cases where a clear case of abuse of power A
and non-compliance with the provisions falling under
Chapter XII Cr.P.C. 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 B
the observance of process as provided for in the Code.
[Para 35] [728-C-D]
't S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors. 1970 (1)
S.C.C. 653 - relied on.
~ c
1.8 Even in cases where no action is taken by the
police on the information given to them, the informant's
remedy lies under Sections 190, 200 Cr. P.C., but a Writ
Petition in such a case is not to be entertained. [Para 36]
[728-H]
D
Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. 2004 (7) sec 768 -
1.9 The whole of public law remedies available under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the constituent
power to issue writs in the nature of mandamus, certiorari, E
prohibition and quo-warranto are neither echoed nor
transplanted into Section 482. May be both the powers to
issue writs and pass appropriate orders under Sec"tion
482 are conferred upon the High Court but they
undoubtedly operate !n different fields. [Para 48] [736-G; F
y 737-A]
Pepsi Foods vs. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 (5)
sec 749- distinguished.
1.10 The contents of the petition submitted by the G
victim and as well as the allegations made in the
anonymous complaint do not 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) IPC. Neither the anonymous H
\ I

708 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A petition nor the complaint made by "the victim has been -l.
directed against the Investigating Officer, complaining of
any bias or any attempt on his part to destroy the available
evidence. [Paras 29 and ·301 [726-D, E, G, H]

1
, 1.11 It is difficult to discern the basis for arriving at
B the conclusion that the entire attempt of the Investigating
Officer was to exonerate the accused and make the
complainant·.;.
as accused.
. (Para 32] [727-C]
M. C. M~hta vs. Union of India 2007 (1) SCC 110 -
C referred to.
2.1 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
D justice. 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
E heard to the person likely to be affected by such order
and particularly when such order results in drastic
consequences of affecting one's own reputation. (Para
44] (735-B; 734-H; 735-A-B]
2.2 The order directing the investigation on the basis
F of such vague and indefinite allegations undoubtedly is
in the teeth of principles of natural justice. It is correct that y

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, 239 and 240 Cr.P.C.
G The appellant is not an accused and, therefore, it was not
entitled for any notice from the High Court befo.re passing
of the impugned order. [Para 44] (734-E-G]
3. The appellant undoubtedly is aggrieved by the
impugned order and, therefore,' entitled to invoke the ,
H jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the I
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 709
& ORS.

Constitution of India; The Director of .the appellant- A
institution has been impleaded as a partyrespondent 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 B
impugned order. [Para 45] [735-E, D]
Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chowdhary and. Union of India and
Anr. vs. W.N. Chadha 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 260 -
distinguished.
· 4. The suo motu action initiated cannot be treated as C
the one in Public Interest Litigation. The Public Interest
Litigant must disclose his identity.so as to enable the court
to decide that th~ informant is. not a wayfarer or officious
intervener withQut any interest or concern. A Public
Interest Litigation can be entertained by the Constitutional D
Courts only at the instaQce 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. [Paras 49, 55 E
. and 56] [741-B; 740-H; 741-A; 737-8-D]
Sunil Batra (//) vs. Delhi Administration- ~980 (3) SCC
488; Dr. Upendra Baxi (I) vs. State of UP 1983 (2) SCC 308;
Miss Veena Sethi vs. State of Bihar 1982 (2) SCC 583;
y
Citizens for Democracy through its President vs. State of F
Assam and Ors. 1995 (3) SCC 743; Janata Dal vs. H.S.
Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892 - distinguished.
S.P Gupta and Ors. vs. President of India and Ors. AIR
1982 SC 149; Dattaraj Nathuji' Thaware vs. State of G
Maharashtra and Ors. 2005 (1) SCC 590; State of West Bengal
and Ors. vs. Sampat Lal and Ors. 1985 (1) SCC 317; Bandhua
Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Ors. 1984 (3) SCC 161 -
relied on.
5.1 It is clear from the record that the Judge of the H
"
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A High Court 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
B 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 behches of the court and allocate cases to the
benches so constituted; and the puisne judges can only
c do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or
under his directions; that the puisne judges cannot "pick
and choose" any case pending in the High Court and
assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal
without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice. [Para 57]
[741-C-E]
D
State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand and Ors. 1998 (1)
SCC 1; Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India and Ors. >
1984 (3) sec 161 - relied on.
5.2 The Judge ought not to have entertained the
E anonymous petition, contents of which remain unverified
and made it basis for setting the law in motion as against
Jr
•
the appellant as he was not entrusted with the judicial duty
of disposing of PIL matters. [Para 59] [742-C]

F 5.3 Independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when
courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and '1

assume primary responsibility to resolve the issues which
are otherwise not entrusted to it by adopting procedures·
which are otherwise not known. [Para 60] [742-C]
G 5.4 There is heavy duty cast upon the constitutional
courts to protect themselves from the onslaught
unleashed by unscrupulous litigants masquerading as
t .
Public Interest Litigants. The individual judges ought not
to entertain communications and letters personaUy
H addressed to them and initiate action on the judicial side
l J
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 711
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

based on such communication so as to avoid A
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 s
before the Chief Justice for consideration as to the
proposed action on such petitions. Each Judge cannot
decide for himself as to what communication should be
entertained for setting the law in motion be it in PIL or in
any jurisdiction. [Para 61] [742-E-G] c
6. The third respondent having completed the
investigation arrived at certain conclusions, but
unnecessarily kept the matter pending. In the
circumstances of the case, third respondent is directed
to make available the material gathered during the course D
of investigation in Crime No. 381 of 2005 to the
Investigating Officer. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer
shall submit appropriate report in accordance with the
provisions of Cr.P.C .. [Paras 64 and 65] [743-E, G, H]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal E
No. 472 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.3:2006 of
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M. C. No. 405 of
2006
F
Y Anil B. Divan, Romy Chacko, Saji Raphel, Gayathri Devi
S. and Arpit Gupta for the Appellant.
P.P. Rao, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, Purushottam S.T.
and FebinA.K. forthe Respondents.
G
Deepak Prakash and Sajith P. (for P. Sumathy) for the
lnteNenor.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.
,
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted. H
' )

712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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, "the Code") is the
cent.rat question that falls for our consideration in this appeal.
3. The relevant facts, giving rise to this appeal, have been
·8 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
c 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, l.P.S. Inspector
0
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
E 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 Najr.
5. The tell-tale facts disclosed from the record may have
F 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
G identified as Father Mathew Thadathil). When she came out of
Centre to attend her sister's marriage .she was implicated in a
false theft case and lodged in the jail.
6. The District Judge having. received the petition on

H
.
28.7.2005 forwarded the same to the concerned Magistrate on
l J
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 713
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

9.8.2005 to do the needful. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, A
Koyilandi recorded the statement of the victim on 11.8.2005
and thereafter the- matter was transferred to the Judicial
Magistrate First Clas~. Chalakuddy. The learned Magistrate
having received the records ordered investigation. A case was
registered in Crime No. 381 of 2005 under Section 376(g) l.P.C. B
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, c
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. '· D
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 E
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) l.P.C. and further stated: ;

"In the meantime, Smt. Mini Varghese delivered. The Local F
y
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 G
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.1.E. dt. 13.10.05 which carried a report,
~
'DNA Test? Oh No') to the effect that the police is not
properly investigating the case and instead, are more H
' J

714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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."
9~The matter was accordingly placed before
Padmanabhan Nair, J. by the Registry who in turn directed the
C matter to be placed before the Registrar General for necessary
actio11 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
D following manner:
"Shri Thomas P. Joseph, District Judge, Kozhikode has
sent a communication dated 28.10.2005, enclosing a
complaint addressed to the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.
Padmanabhan Nair. The communication of the learned
E District Judge and the complaint are self-explanatory.
If any steps are to be taken with regard to the matter may
kindly be indicated."
The learned judge on the same day made the following
F endorsement:
"Please 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?"
G Thereafter the Registry re-submitted the whole file before
Padmanabhan Nair, J as under:
"It appears that Smt. Mini Varghese, FRP 287, District
Jail, Kozhikode had sent a complaint to the Hon'ble High
Court, narrating her agonies. The matter was placed before
H the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Thankappan, since His Lordship
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 715
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

was dealing with the petitions sent from jail. As per the A
order of the Hon'ble 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. B
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'ble Judge, as per His Lordship's order dated
c
22.12.2005 directed that the matter be closed.
The entire file is submitted."
On re-submission of the file, the learned judge passed the
following order on 8.2.2006 thus:
D

1 "I have carefully gone through Anonymous petition and the
documents endorsed along with. One 9f the documents
enclosed alongwith the petition is a petition submitted by
FPR 287, Mini Varghese raising an allegation of rape E
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 F
'(
from Smt. Mini Varghese to the Suptd. Of Police TCR for
necessary action on 7-9-05. The Suptd. Of Police had
filed a 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 l.P. Code is registered and the same is being G
investigated by the C I of Police Chalakkudy. The Cl 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'ble Judge who was dealing with H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E the matter is taken on the judicial side especially in view
of the allegation of involv~ment 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
F in the court on 21-11-05 as petitions praying for an order
for proper investigation and Register as a suo motu Cr/.
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.
G 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."
11. Be it noted that the complaint/Petition dated 27 .1 O.2005
H received from Mini Varghese by the Registry on 21.11.2005
'J
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 717
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

was placed in the same file based on which Thankappan; J A
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: "No further
probe is necessary. Close the fi1e." This fact was also brought
to the notice of Padmanabhan Nair, J. B
12. However, the learned Judge was of the view that the
subsequent petition sent by Mini Varghese dated 27 .10.2005
'r
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 c..
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
D
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 E
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 F
'(
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 thff·order void.
It was further contended that the impugned order suffers from G
lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the High Court under
Sec~ion 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 dire~tions issued by the High
Court could not have been issued even in a public interest H
f

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S. C.R.
' J

A 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
B 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.
"f
15. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on
c 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
.D 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
r
that the appellant has no locus to challenge the impugned order
inasmuch as it is not an accused in any criminal case. It was
E also contended that even the accused in a criminal case has no
right of hearing until filinQ of a report under Section 173 of the
Code.
NATURE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 482
OF CODE. QUA THE REGISTRATION OF A CRIME AND
F INVESTIGATION:
~
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 Ahmad1 . The Privy Council
G
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
1
H (AIR1945 P.C. 18)
' )

DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA. 719
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

should· not interfere with the police in matters which are within A
their province and into which the law imposes upon them the
duty of enquiry. It is held:
"In 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 B
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 C
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 D
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's 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 E
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 F
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." (emphasis supplied)
17. In S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & ors. 2 , G
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
1 investigate any cognizable 9ffence is uncontrolled by t~e

2 [(1970) 1 S.C.C. 653]
H
'
I

720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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 sub0rdinate to him to proceed to enquire
into the case. "The power of the police to investigate has been
B made independent of any control by the Magistrate." It is further
held:
"though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the
police unfettered power to investigate all cases where 1
they suspect that a cognizable offence has been
c .committed, in appropriate 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
D ma/a fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of
mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing
his legal powers."
This position has been made further clear by this Court in
its authoritative pronouncement in State of Bihar & anr. Vs.
E J.A.C. Saldanha & ors. 3 thus:

"25. 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
F 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
G
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
3
H [(1980) 1 S.C.C. 554]
' '
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 721
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

officer submits report to the Court requesting the Court A
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 8
adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether
an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the
t 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 c
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 ........
D
.................................................................................................
.................................................................................................

pp26. This view of the Judicial Committee clearly
demarcates the functions of the executive and the
iudiciary in the field of detection of crime and its E
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." (emphasis is of
ours)
18. The observations of this Court in M.C. Abraham & F
Anr.Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. 4 in this regard deserve
to be noticed. In the said case it was held:
"The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is for the
investigating agency to submit a report to the Magistrate
G
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
4
[(2003) 2 S.C.C. 649] H
\ },

722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A allegations made in the first information report. It is open
to the Magistrate concerned to accept the report or to
order fµrther 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
B 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
1
the investigating agency to submit a report
, to the effect
...,_
c that the allegations have been supported by the material r
collected during the course of investigation."
19. In State of West Bengal Vs. S.N. Basak5, this Court
reiterated the principle that the police has statutory right to
investigate int9 the circumstances of any alleged cognizable
D 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. 6 '·this Court
while explaining the nature and purport of the inherent jurisdiction
E of the High Court observed that in exercising jurisdiction under
Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the High
Court can quash proceeding.s 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
F to whether the evidence is 'reliable or not'. 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
G
power in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

5
) .
[(1963) 2 S.C.R. 52]
6
H [(1972) 1 S.C.C. 452]
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 723
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.j

_._., 20. In Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. The State of West A
Bengal & Anr. 7 this Court held that:
"The 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
iudicial authority and even the High Court has no inherent B
power under Section 561-A of the Code to interfere with
the exercise of that statutory power."
~

21. In State ofW.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
c
High Court is saved only where an order has been passed by
the Criminal Court which is req'uired 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 power
under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High D
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 E

'
_.
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 F
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. G
23. Chandrachud, J.. (as His Lordship then was), in
~ Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana 8 while
7 (1973) 3 S.C.C. 753
8 [(1977) 4 S.C.C. 451]
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A considering the nature of jurisdiction conferred upon the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code observed: ""
"It 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
B exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest
of rare cases."
24. Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel contended that
in the instant case the High Court properly exercised its inherent
c 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
0
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
E decisions of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. L..
Muniswamy & Ors. 9 , Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.
Ravi Shankar Srivastava, /AS & Anr. 10 & Popular Muthiah
Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police 11 .

F 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
G proceedings initiated by the State of Karnataka and accordingly
discharged the accused. The High Court as well as thi~ Court .
found that there was no material on the record on which any
9 (1977) 2 S.C.C. 699
10
(2006) 7 S.C.C. 188
H 11
(2006) 7 S.C.C. 296
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 725
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

court could reasonably convict the accused for any offence. It is A
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:
"The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in B
civil and criminal matters, is 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."
c
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
D
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: E
"(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 F
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 G
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." H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
a 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. "Such a power does not come within the purview of
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Investigation
c of an offence is a statutory pcyver of the police. The State in its
discretion may get the investigation done by any agency
unless there exists an extraordinary situation. "This Court further
held that the High Court cannot issue directions to investigate
the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency.
D 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.
E 381 of 2005 under Se~tion 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code?
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 'put to cold
storage due to influence exerted at high places'. This is required
F 'to be considered along with the petition sent by the victim herself
making certain allegations against the police in general. The
allegations are again~t ~o police consta_bles that they have
tortured her mentatly tn connection with the investigation of the
case. She complained that truth will never come out if the case
G is entrusted to the police for- investigation. She prayed for a
"confidential investigation". Neither the anonymous petition nc.. ~
the complaint made by the victim has been directed against th ..:
Investigating Officer complaining of any bias or any attempt ,·
his part to destroy the available evjdence.
'. H
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 727
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

31. Be it noted that Thankappan, J. vide order dated A
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 B
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 c
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 D
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 11 O] -upon analysis of the relevant E
provisions of the Code held that after cornpletion 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, F
i he has to take necessary steps under Section 170 of the Code.
'In 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. We do not propose to
G
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 H
~
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B unlimited discretion and act according to one's own choice. The
power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition
of which that power is granted by the Code itself.

· 34. In our yiew, the High Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction cannot change the Investigating Officer in the
c 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
D 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 diffe·rent matter that the High Court in
exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
E 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-
F 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
G the Code.
36 Even in cases where no action is taken by the police
on the information given to them, the informant's 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
H
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 729
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

Janardan Mhatre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. 12 held: A

"When 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 B
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 c
into offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit
a report. If he finds th_at 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 D
facje 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' Union (Regd.) V Union of India 13 . It was E
specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is
not to be entertained."
WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN
ENTERTAINING ANONYMOUS PETITION?
F
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
G
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
12
(2004) 7 sec 768
13
(1996) 11sec582 H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B caption "unnatural death"; (d) there is a gang in the retreat centre
and one Sr. Teresa and two helpers were l)elping 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 '1

person who also died under the mysterious circumstances.
c 38. One of the documents enclosed to the anonymous
petition is a magazine by name 'Divine Voice' published by the
appellant. In one of the volumes published in June, 2005 the
names of senior l.A.S and l.P.S officers were mentioned as the
members of the Advisory Board; one such named officer is
D 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
E of that offi.cer 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
F 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
G
the allegations of foreign exchange violation;
(iii) The Special Investigation Team shall also inquire into
the allegations of unnatural deaths stated in the
petition.
H
I
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 731
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

39. The Special Investigation Team was entrusted with A
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 arid all other departments of the Government to s
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 C
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 made in unsigned D
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? E
41. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
Services, U.P. and Ors. Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr. 14
, 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 F
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 s·uch allegations. This Court relying upon its earlier
decision in Common Cause, A Registered Society Vs. Union' G
of India & ors. 15 held that a direction for investigation can be
given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been

14
(2002) s sec s21
15
(1999) 6 sec 667 H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A committed or a person's 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
8 order, we would like to quote the following few sentences:
"7. As I have already stated there are various other
a/legations leveled against the Retreat Centre. One of
the documents produced in a magazine the front page
c of a publication by name "Divine Voice" published by
the Divine Retreat Centre at Muringoor. It is captioned
as a spiritual congregation of the Government Officials.
In the gth volume published in June 2005, the names of
a Senior l.A.S. Officer and a Senior I.PS. Officer, were
stated as the members of the Advisory Board. It is seen
D
that a Writ Petition was filed against the Retreat Centre
by an orphanage as WP.(C) No. 22543 of 2005 before
this Court in which a specific a/legation 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.
E 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
F 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
G 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
H circumstances in and around the Retreat Centre. There
• I J

DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 733
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

is allegation of receipt of foreign money without proper A
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.PS. Officers, are B
associated with the functioning of the Retreat Centre,
and because of the a/legations 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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
information regarding any cognizable offences, those
matters shall a/so be investigated in accordance with law."
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 G
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
H
\ I

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A information received or otherwise and proceed to investigate
provided he has reason to suspect the commission of a
cognizable offence which he is empower~d 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
s 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
c 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
0
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.
E 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
F 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
G 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
H motion on the basis of the allegations made in anonymous
\ ' DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
735

petition filed in the High Court. No judicial order can ever be A
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's own reputation. In our vie,w, the impugned
order of the High Court directing enquiry and investigation into B
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 "person" contemplated by Article c
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 -
institution has been impleaded as a party respondent in the
criminal petition and the whole of the allegations in the D
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 E
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The decisions
in Janata Da/Vs. H.S. Chowdhary(supra) and Union oflndia
& Anr. Vs. W.N. Chadha 16 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 F
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
G
to the police by any informant alleging commission of any
cognizable offence by the appellant and the persons associated
with the appellant - institution. It is a peculiar case of its own
kind where an anonymous petition is sent directly in the name
16
1993 supp. (4) sec 260 H
\ )

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A of a learned judge of the Kera la 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
B not decisive. The High Court can exercise power suo motu either
under Article 226 or under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or 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
c Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed
upon the observations made by this Court in Pepsi Foods Vs.
Special Judicial Magistrate 17 • 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
D 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
E 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
...i 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 nature of mandamus, certiorari,
G 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

H
11 (1998) s sec 749
' )

DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 737
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

different fields. A
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 B
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 c
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 D
Administration 18 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. 19 , 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, atAgra E
who were living in inhuman and degrading conditions. In Miss
Veena Sethi V. State of Bihar2°, 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 F
& ors. 21 upon which reliance has been placed by Shri P. P. Rao,
this Court entertained a letter addressed by Shri Kuldip Nayar,
an eminent journalist, in his capacity as President of "Citizens
for Democracy" to one of the judges of this Court complaining
of human rights violations of TADA detenues and the same was G

18
(1980) 3 sec 488
19
(1983) 2 sec 308
20
(1982) 2 sec 583
21
(1995) 3 sec 743 H
\ I

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.
J
"
A 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
B 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
c 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 "f

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. 22 , this Court
0
in clear and unequivocal terms observed that it would be prudent
for the constitutional courts to "confine 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
E 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."
F 50. The law in this regard is summarized in Janata Dal
Vs. H.S. Chowdhary23 thus:
a
"It is thus clear that only person acting bona fide and
having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL will
alone have a locus standi and can approach the Court
G 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

22
AIR 1982SC149
H 23
AIR 1993 SC 892
\ )

DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 739
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition A
under the colour of PIL brought before the Court for
vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection
at the threshold."
51. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors. 24 this Court observed: B

"The 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 c
on personal vendetta. As indicated above, court must be
.r' ..... 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
D
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 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. E
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."
F
52. In State of West Bengal & ors. Vs. Sampat Lal &
Ors. 25 , 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
G
the process of the court is not abused or misused. "The 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

-. 24
(2oos) 1 sec 590
25
(1985) 1 sec 317 H
\ l

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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."

53. How to verify the credentials, character or standing of
c 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
-
D 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
E 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
F 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.
G 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.

H
55. In our view, the Public Interest Litigant must disclose •
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 741
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

his identity so as to enable the court to decide that the informant A
is not a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or
concern.
56. In such view of the matterthe suo motu action initiated
cannot be treated as the one in public interest litigation.
B
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 C
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 D
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 "pick and choose" any case
pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or
themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief E
Justice. (See State of Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand &
Ors. 26 )
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 F
on judicial side. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India
& ors. 27 , 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 G
personally addressed. "The fundamental conception of the Court
must be respected, that it is a single indivisible institution, of

26
(1998) 1 sec 1
27
(1984)3SCC161
H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A united purpose and existing solely for the high constitution@!
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
B effective functioning."
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 iaw in motion as
against the appellant as he was not entrusted with the judicial
C duty of dispos1ng of PIL matters.
60. Institution's 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
0
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
E 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
F 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
G decide 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 needle.ss to say that none of these aspects have
been taken into consideration by the High Court before setting
H the criminal law in motion as against the appellant. The
\ ,
DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA 743
& ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
.'. sweeping directions issued by the Court are in the nature of A
·' 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 impermiss,ible in
law.
63. For the aforesaid reasons,_ directions issued by the B
High Court constituting the Special Investigation Team to
investigate into the allegations made in anonymous petition are
set aside.
RELIEF c
64. However, the fact remains that the Circle Inspector of
l
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/ D
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 "the paternity of the E
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." This is beyond one's imagination
as to how and why such an inquiry is required to be made. The
First Information Report, material gathered during the F
., investigation, contents of the victim's complaint and conclusions
drawn by the Special Investigation Team themselves do notjustify
any such further enquiry.
65. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the third
respondent to make available the material gathered during the G
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 H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A 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.
'J':h-
8 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. ~,~
c
N.J. Appeal allowed .

. -~~:~- . 1. '~'1'J ..::~'.~·,•1b\:b ~.'>"h.'' ';I •11~.t· ,,.....,~- .. ~~ ...