Holding

The Supreme Court held that a case exists for an independent investigation and directed a DIG to conduct it, but found no necessity to refer the matter to the CBI.

Summary

Sarvsheel Mago alleged that a police officer (respondent No.4) in collusion with private individuals (respondents No.5 and 6) repeatedly searched his vehicle and falsely implicated him for possession of contraband drugs, despite no incriminating material being found. He filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking registration of criminal cases against the respondents under IPC sections 341, 342, 211, 120B and NDPS Act section 58. The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to issue any direction for registration, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers, held that the material disclosed in the inquiry report justified a fresh, independent investigation and directed a DIG, under the supervision of the DGP, to conduct it, while declining to refer the matter to the CBI. The Court disposed of the appeal, ordering the investigation to be completed within three months and granting the appellant liberty to approach the Court again if necessary.

Issues considered

What is the scope of the Supreme Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to direct a fresh investigation?
Whether the facts disclosed warrant the registration of criminal cases against the police officer and private respondents?
Whether referral of the investigation to the CBI is necessary in the present circumstances?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 211, s. 341, s. 342
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 58

Subjects

Inherent powersSection 482 CrPCIndependent investigationPolice misconductFalse implicationNDPS ActCriminal case registrationHigh Court order

Judgment

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 357

-~
SARVSHEEL MAGO A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2008)
MARCH 25, 2008
B
~ [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Inherent
powers of High Court - Various litigations between private
parties and complainant on account of dispute ~ Private c
parties conniving with police officer and trying to falsely
implicate complainant for possessing contraband substances
- Complainant seeking registration of criminal cases against
police officer and private parties as a/so investigation - Refusal

,, by High Court - On appeal held: Case made out for
independent and unbiased investigation into the offence on
basis of the Inquiry Report- Officer of the rank of DIG directed
D

to further investigate into the complaint - Referring the matter
to CBI for investigation not required - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
341, 342, 211 and 120-B - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - s. 58. E

Appellant's daughter was married with the son of
respondent no~ 6. There was a dispute among the parties.
Appellant also had strained relations with respondent no.
5. Criminal cases were registered against the appellant F
and his family members however, they all were acquitted.
-~
It is alleged that respondent no. 5 and 6 in connivance
with respondent no. 4-Police officer tried to falsely
implicate the appellant for possessing contraband drugs .
. Search was carried out on three occasions but nothing
G
incriminating was found. Appellant did not succeed in
registering a criminal case against the respondents.
Thereafter, appellant filed a petition uls. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
.... "'
direction to register criminal case ulss. 341, 342 and 211
357 H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A IPC read with s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act read with s.120-B IPC against respondent
Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Thi~ High Court did not issue any
directions for registration of the criminal cases against
the appellant. The appellant filed SLP before this Court.
B Notices were issued on SLP and also notices were issued
to CBI. This Court passed an order that an officer of the •
rank of DIG under supervision of DGP would make an
independent investigation as to whether any attempt had
been made by respondent no. 4 to harass appellant by
c trying to lodge cases under NDPS Act.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: After goin!g through the Inquiry Report made
by the DIG at the instance of the DGP which was in the
nature of investigation, it is found that there is a case for
0
investigation into the offence. Therefore, further
investigation is directied by the officer of the rank of DIG
into the complaint made by the appellant. However, at this
stage, there is no neciessity of referring the matter to CBI
as the DIG has so far conducted unbiased and
E independent investigation in the matter. An independent
and unbiased investigation shall be done on the basis of
the complaint against all concerned including
respondents as also such others who had any role to play
in the incident dated 8.8.2004. Further action, if necessary,
F shall be taken against all such persons who have been
found to have a hand in the harassment of the appellant,
whose' car was constantly searched on as many as three
occasions without anything objectionable being found.
The liberty is given to the appellant to approach this Court
G again in case the need is felt. [Paras 11 and 12] [365-B, C,
D, E, F, G; 366-A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 545 of 2008
,H From the final Judgment and order dated 9/9/2005 of the
SARVSHEEL MAGO v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 359
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
--( High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. A
No. 44156-M/2004.
Subodh Markandeya, Chitra Markandaya and R. Agrawal
for the Appellant.

- ~
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., B.S. Mor, Nee raj Mor, Mahinder Singh
Dahiya, Rajni Ohri, B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeswaran, Kusum Singh,
R.C. Kaushik, Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Rajesh Ranjan and
B

TV.George for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant herein has challenged the order passed by
the High Court, whereby his petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
was disposed of with certain directions. In his petition, the
appellant had sought registration of criminal case against D
1' respondent nos. 4 to 6 for offences under Sections 341, 342,
2111.P.C. and Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") read
with Section 120-8 l.P.C in relation to the incident which took
place on 7.8.2004. The High Court, however, refused to issue E
any direction regarding the registration of a criminal case on
the ground that there was no material on record, from which it
could prima facie be found that respondent no. 4 had stopped
the vehicle and conducted the search with mala fide motive.
The High Court viewed it as a part of the duty of respondent no. F
4. The High Court did not also find fault with the alleged role
- -+- played by respondent nos. 5 and 6, however, left it open to the
appellant to avail of his alternative remedy on the basis of
allegation that respondent no. 5 and 6 were deliberately and
intentionally implicating him by making false calls to the police.
•.. G
3. The factual background of this is that out of respondent
"'-. nos. 4, 5 and 6, the 4th respondent is a police officer working as
Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police and posted at Model Town
,!""" ""'
Police Station of Kamal and is presently posted at Ram Nagar,
Kamal, while respondent nos. 5 and 6 are private individuals. H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A Appellant has a daughter called Nidhi Mago and in the year ..,... -
1999, her marriage alliance was being discussed with
ParshantArora, son of respondent no. 6 who was then out of
India and was scheduled to come to India in the end of May,
1999.
B 4. According to the appellant, Nidhi Mago was kidnapped ,..,
on 15.5.1999 from Chandigarh. This kidnapping was done at -4
the instance of respondent no. 5 Sanjay Bhardwaj. She was
allegedly made to go through the marriage ceremonies.
However, on 26.5.t999, she was rescued from Golabanda,
c Orissa and on the next day, a crime was registered for offences
under Sections 376, 363, 366, 468, 467, 471 and 120-8 l.P.C.
vide F.1.R. No. 0087/1999 against respondent no. 5, his father
and his friend. It is then contended that during the pendency of
this FIR, f\lidhi Mago was married to Parshant Arora, son of
D respondent no. 6 on 1.6.1999 and the marriage was registered.
She started cohabiting with ParshantArora at Kamal. After this, y
Parshant Arora went back to Canada from where he had come
and Nidhi Mago was also sent back to her parents' house with
the assurance that she will be sent to Canada as soon as her
E Visa is granted. It is, however, alleged that respondent no. 6
took her passport. In June, ·1999, allegedly, there was a dispute '·
among the appellant and respondent no. 6 on account of alleged
dowry demand. It was on account of this that respondent nos. 5
and 6 colluded with each other and started blackmailing the
F appellant. In the month of Juiy, 1999, respondent no. 6 as attorney
of Parshant Arora filed a petition for annulment of marriage. On
the same day, respondent no. 5 filed a petition for restitution of +·
conjugal rights against Nidhi Mago. These petitions were still
pending when respondent no. 5 filed a complaint against the
appellant and his family members for offence under Section 307
G
l.P.C., which was registered as FIR No. 586/99 in Police Station, ..•
,Sector-17, Chandigarh. Atrial went on the basis of this allegation.
So much so, respondent no. 5 had also filed a criminal case .J-

, under Section 307 l.P.C. against the appellant and the family )W '"'!."
'
, members at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. The Sessions Judge,
H
SARVSHEEL MAGO v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 361
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
--(
however, vide his order dated 12.10.2004 was pleased to acquit A
the appellant and family members of all the charges. In the year
2001, Nighi Mago moved an application for maintenance
pendente lite against the son of respondent no. 6 ParshantArora,
upon which respondent no. 6 withdrew petition that he had filed
on behalf of his son. It was the petition under the Hindu Marriage B
Act. Thereafter, he filed a suit, which is still pending adjudication,
while respondent no. 6 filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP
(C) No. 4708/2002 against the interim stay granted against
respondent no. 6's son in the Civil Revision Petition No. 4321/
2001. According to the appellant, the said revision petition is c
still pending.

5. The appellant then alleged that respondent no. 6 had
filed a private complaint for an offence under Section 420 l.P:C.
against the appellant and his family members on some false
grounds. However, the High Court vide order dated 30.1.2004 D
~ had stayed the proceedings of the same general complaint. On
21.5.2004, the appellant had come to the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge Sh. J.S. Kalar, Chandigarh to attend the hearing
of the said case, which was registered under F.l.R. No. 586/99.
When he came out of the Court, the officials of the Crime Branch E
of Chandigarh Police surrounded him and his car and told the
appellant that they had the telephonic information that the
appellant was carrying a contraband of drugs in his car. The car
was thoroughly checked and nothing incriminating was found
and, therefore, the appellant and his car was released. On this, F
the appellant lodged a complaint against respondent no. 5 with
-~
the S.S.P., Chandigarh. However, the police did not take any
action. Thereafter, appellant and his son were again
apprehended by Panchkula Police. near their house on the
same allegation that police had secret information about the
G
appellant carrying narcotic drugs. Again the search was taken
and nothing incriminating was found. The appellant was,
- --..:
however, released. The appellant again filed a complaint to take
action against respondent no. 5 with S.S.P., Panchkula for which
the F.l.R. was made. However, the police did nottake any action.
H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

~-

A This complaint was made for falsely implicating the appellant.
6. On 7.8.2004 the appellant ·and his daughter and other
family members had come to Delhi to attend the court where
annulment petition filed by Nidhi Mago was pending. While
coming back from Delhi to Karna! it was seen that respondents
B 5 and 6 were following the car and when they were about to
reach Kamal, respondents 5 and 6 had gone ahead and the
car was stopped at Liberty Chowk, Karna! at the instance of
respondents 5 and 6 by respondent no.4. Immediately thereafter
respondents 5 and 6 left while the car was searched by the
c respondent no.4 and other police officers who were not even
wearing the uniform nor were they wearing their name plate.
lnspite of the protest, the car was searched again and nothing
incriminating was found. However, the respondent no.4 started
pressurising the appellant to come to the Police Station. On
D this the appellant grew suspicious that something may be planted
in the car and hence he, instead of going to the Police Station,
went to the residence of Superintendent of Police, Karna! where
even respondent no.4 followed him. Again the search was taken
at the direction of Superintendent of Police at his residence
E and nothing incriminating was found. It was, however, further /
I

contended that the Supe~rintendent of Police initiated a
Departmental Inquiry against the respondent no.4 and the
respondent no.4 came to be transferred. The appellant alleges
that all this was done at the instance of the respondent no.6
F who was exerting his pressure.
7. The appellant further alleges that he wanted to lodge a k·
complaint in the Police Chowki, Model Town, Kamal, however,
since the respondent no.4 was the senior-most officer in the
Chowki, he refused to register the complaint. Therefore, he had
G to lodge a complaint through post. However, the respondent no.4
refused to accept the complaint and no investigation was carried
out on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant. It was,
)!.- -
therefore, that the appellant filed an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. in the month of August, 2004 alleging the
H
SARVSHEEL MAGO v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 363
[VS. SIRPURKAR, J]

--~ conspiracy between respondents 4, 5 and 6 against the appellant A
by falsely implicating him for possessing contraband
substances. Even before registration of this application, the
respondent no.6 appeared along with his counsel before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial
Magistrate instead of ignoring the respondent no.6 directed the B
appellant to withdraw his application and returned the whole
k paperbook to him.

8. It was, thereafter, that the appellant filed a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Criminal Misc. No.44156-M of
2004 (O&M) for a direction to register criminal case under c
Sections 341, 342 and 211 l.P.C. read with Section 58 of the
NDPS Act and Section 120-B IPC against respondents 4, 5
and 6. This petition was opposed by respondent no.4 but
admitted that during the search at Liberty Chowk, Karna I nothing
incriminating was found in the car. He, however, pointed out that D
he had made the Daily Diary Entry of his action and that nothing
was malafide. According to the appellant, very strangely the State
had adopted the reply of the respondent no.4 wherein the
respondent no.4 had admitted that no investigation had been
carried out on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant. E
In short, the complaint of the appellant is that the respondents 1,
2 and 3 were not doing their statutory duty of looking into the
complaint and registering the same under the influence of
respondents 4, 5 and 6.
9. During the course of arguments, the appellant supplied F
a list of various cases pending in between the parties, namely,
,.~
the appellant on the one hand and respondents 3, 5 and 6 on
the other. There are as many as 12 cases in respect of
respondent no.6 Col. Sadanand Arora and about 8 cases in
respect of respondent no.5 Sanjay Bhardwaj. G

10. This Court initially issued a notice on the Special Leave
Petition and also issued notice to CBI as the appellant had filed
- ~ a petition for its impleadment. After hearing the parties this Court
passed the following order on 27.7.2007:
H
364 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

.,.... -
A "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case
and having regard to the allegations and counter
allegations made by the parties, we are of the opinion that •
an officer of the rank of DIG under the direct supervision
of the DGP should mal<e an independent investigation as
B to whether any attempt had been made by respondent
no.4 herein to harass the petitioner by making endeavours
+
to lodge cases under the NDPS Act. We are not oblivious
of the fact that the allegations have been made in the
light of the disputes between the private parties.
c Ordinarily, we would not have interfered with the
judgment of the High Court but allegations of such
serious nature, in our opinion, should be thoroughly
inquirE!d into. We would request the DGP of the State of
Haryana to submit a report within three months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
D
Put up after three months."
Accordingly a thorough inquiry was got conducted by the
Director General of Police and an affidavit has been filed by
him. In his affidavit, the deponent Shri R.S. Dalal, IPS, Director
E General of Police, Haryana has firstly mentioned about the
incident dated 8.8.2004 regarding the search of the car at Liberty
Chowk, Kamal and has thereafter asserted that he has gone
through the statements made by the complainant, his wife and
his son and also the statements of as many as 12 police officers
F including th13 respondent no.4 Surinder Malik, ASI as well as
the Superintendent of Police, Kamal. The deponent has
~'
thereafter given his conclusions. In his affidavit it is further
suggested that the versions of the ASI about the secret
information having been conveyed to the Superintendent of
G Police was not supported by SP, Karna! Shri Vikas Arora and
the version of the appellant that ASI Surinder Malik had tried to
take the car to the Police Station but the appellant of his own
rushed to the SP's residence to be correct. It is further suggested ... -·
that it transpired from DDR Nos.12 and 13 dated 8 .8.2004 that
., search was not made under the direction of SP, Kamal and
H th.e
SARVSHEEL MAGO v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 365
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
---{
the SP, Kamal had also denied to have given any direction for A
such search. In his affidavit the DGP has found fault with the
behaviour of Shri Surinder Malik, ASI and the local police and
that they had acted in a mala fide manner.

11. A copy of the report of the Inquiry made by Deputy
Director General of Police, State Crime Branch, Haryana dated B
28.10.2007 has also been filed. We would not go into the details
of the report. However, the report suggests that a full and detailed
inquiry was made by the DIG at the instance of the DGP which
was in the nature of investigation.

12. We are satisfied after going through the Inquiry Report
c
that there is a case for investigation into the offence. We,
therefore, direct the further investigation by the officer of the rank
of DIG into the complaint made by the appellant. We, however,
at this stage, do not find the necessity of referring the matter to
D
CBI as in our opinion the DIG has so far conducted unbiased
and independent investigation in the matter. We expect that an
independent and unbiased investigation shall be done on the
basis of the complaint against all concerned including
respondents herein as also such others who had any role to
play in the incident dated 8.8.2004. Such investigation would E
be conducted and further action, if necessary, shall be taken
against all such persons who have been found to have a hand
in the harassment of the appellant, whose car was constantly
searched on as many as three occasions without anything
objectionable being found. The DIG under whose supervision F
> -f the investigation shall be conducted shall also take into account
the previous history of the litigation as also the previous
proceedings and an objective investigation shall be conducted
therefor. The Inquiry Report does not speak from the angle of
part played, if any, by respondents 5 and 6 and others. However, G
that angle shall also be examined and investigation conducted
in that behalf. We are, however, convinced that at the level where
- -..>/
the investigation is going on there is nothing suspicious or mala
fide and, therefore, we reject the prayer of the appellant to hand
over the investigation to CBI. We, however, give liberty to the H
366 SUPREME COURT l~EPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.

A appellant to approach this Court again in case the need is felt.
However, that will be only after the investigation is complete and
a report of the investigation is submitted before the competent
court. We also expect the investigation to be completed within
three months and in case it is not possible, the Investigating
B Officer shall have the liberty to approach this Court for extension
of time.

13. With the above directions we dispose of the present
appeal.

C N.J. Appeal disposed of.