Holding

The High Court erred in directing CBI investigation; the transfer of the trust property was permissible under Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, and the order directing CBI was set aside.

Summary

The Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir Trust and its pujari challenged a Jharkhand High Court order that, based on a public‑interest writ, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the alleged illegal transfer of land belonging to the deity. The High Court had held that the original trust deeds prohibited any sale and that the 2005 deed was a fraud, directing CBI investigation despite no police complaint. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could entertain such a PIL, direct CBI investigation, and whether the transfer was permissible under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950. It held that Section 44 of the Act authorises transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after prior sanction from the Board and that the trustees had obtained such sanction, making the High Court’s suspicion unfounded. The Court also reiterated that CBI can be directed only in exceptional cases with a prima facie case and State consent, which were absent here. Consequently, the High Court order was set aside and the writ dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the High Court's direction to the CBI to investigate the alleged transfer of deity land in a public‑interest writ.
Whether the transfer of immovable property of a religious trust requires sanction under Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 and whether such sanction was obtained.
Whether the Deity, as a religious endowment, can transfer its own land.
The scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 in directing investigations by the CBI.

Legislation cited

Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950s. 28(j), s. 44
Code of Criminal Procedures. 154(3), s. 156(3), s. 482

Subjects

religious trustland transferpublic interest litigationCBI investigationBihar Hindu Religious Trust ActSection 44Section 28(j)State police jurisdictionArticle 226Deity property

Judgment

[2019] 8 S.C.R. 137 137

SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN A
MANDIR & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.4003 of 2019) B
MAY 01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Investigation: Transfer of land of deity – Public Interest
C
Litigation by respondent No. 8 challenging the transfer – No
grievance was made by respondent No. 8 to any public authority in
respect of the alleged transfer by the Trustees nor any report was
lodged before the concerned police station making grievance of
any one of the facts stated in the writ petition so as to initiate the
process of investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code – High D
Court held that there is no provision in the original Trust Deed to
transfer the property of the Deity but new Trust Deed was prepared
with ulterior motive, to usurp the property of the Deity and to facilitate
illegal transfer of land of the Deity – High Court further held that
there was large scale illegality which required to be enquired into
E
and directed the CBI to enquire/investigate the criminality part in
giving such sanction – In the instant appeal, the Trust and the Pujari
of the Mandir challenged the directions of High Court on the ground
that the Board of Religious Trust had granted approval for transfer
of the property – Held: s.44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act,
1950 gives power of transfer of immovable property of a religious F
trust after taking previous sanction from the Board – Such permission
is to convert any property of the Trust after approval of the District
Judge as provided by s.28 (j) of the Act – Thus, High Court was not
justified in creating a suspicion on an act of transferring the land
of the Deity – The vesting of the property in Deity is a religious
G
endowment but has no public element in it, the grievance of which
can be made in a writ petition filed in the public interest – High
Court passed an order directing investigation by CBI by casually
returning a finding that permission was obtained by the Trust by
misrepresentation and fraud – High Court completely misdirected
H
137
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A itself in directing the CBI to take over investigation in a matter which
related to the rights of the trustees to sell property of a religious
Trust or Deity, giving rise to civil dispute – The order of the High
Court is set aside – Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 – s.44 –
Public Interest Litigation – Trust – Religious endowment.
B Constitution of India: Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 1 and 2
– Transfer of land of deity – Challenge to the said transfer – High
Court held that there was large scale illegality which required to be
enquired into and directed the CBI to investigate – Held: The public
order (Entry 1) and the police (Entry 2) is a State subject falling in
List II of the VII Schedule of the Constitution – It is a primary
C responsibility of the investigating agency of the State Police to
investigate all offences which are committed within its jurisdiction
– The investigations can be entrusted to CBI only in exceptional
circumstances – Such power cannot and should not be exercised in
a routine manner without examining the complexities and nature of
D offence – Trust – Religious endowment.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court ought to have refrained from
entertaining such Public Interest Litigation in respect of alleged
wrongful sale of property of the religious bodies. Section 44 of
E the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 gives power of transfer
of immovable property of a religious trust after taking previous
sanction from the Board. Such permission is to convert any
property of the Trust after approval of the District Judge as
provided by Section 28 (j) of the Act. The stand of the appellants
F is that they have obtained approval as contemplated by the Act
and such approval has been sought as an act of prudent
management. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in
creating a suspicion on an act of transferring the land of the Deity.
[Paras 10, 11] [143-C-E]

G 2. The finding recorded by the High Court that the Deity
could not transfer its land in any case is not tenable. The sweeping
remarks that the allegations are against the Government and the
Board which consist of Government functionaries; therefore, the
matter requires to be investigated by CBI are wholly untenable

H
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN 139
MANDIR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND

and such sweeping remarks against the Government and/or the A
Board should not have been made. The functioning in the
Government is by different Officers and the working of the
Executive has inbuilt checks and balances. Therefore, merely
because, permission has been granted by a functionary of the
State Government will not disclose a criminal offence. The High
B
Court has thus travelled much beyond its jurisdiction in directing
investigations by CBI in a matter of sale of property of the Deity.
Still further, the High Court has issued directions without their
being any complaint to the local police in respect of the property
of the religious Trust. [Para 19] [149-E-G]
3. The public order (Entry 1) and the police (Entry 2) is a C
State subject falling in List II of the VII Schedule of the
Constitution. It is a primary responsibility of the investigating
agency of the State Police to investigate all offences which are
committed within its jurisdiction. The investigations can be
entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation on satisfaction of D
the conditions as specified therein only in exceptional
circumstances as laid down in State of West Bengal case. Such
power cannot and should not be exercised in a routine manner
without examining the complexities, nature of offence and some
time the tardy progress in the investigations involving high
officials of the State investigating agency itself. [Para 20] E
[150-A-C]
State of West Bengal and Others v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and
Others (2010) 3 SCC 571 : [2010] 2 SCR 979
– followed. F

Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and
Another (2002) 5 SCC 521; Sujatha Ravi Kiran v. State
of Kerala and Others (2016) 7 SCC 597 : [2016] 3
SCR 492; K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, G
CBCID South Zone, Chennai and Others (2013) 12
SCC 480 : [ 2013] 9 SCR 199; Bimal Gurung v. Union
of India (2018) 15 SCC 480 : [2018] 4 SCR 843 ;
T.C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal and Others (2011) 12
SCC 328 : [2011] 9 SCR 647 – referred to.. H
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
[2010] 2 SCR 979 followed Para 12
(2002) 5 SCC 521 referred to Para 13
[2016] 3 SCR 492 referred to Para 15
B [2013] 9 SCR 199 referred to Para 16
[2018] 4 SCR 843 referred to Para 17
[2011] 9 SCR 647 referred to Para 18

C CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4003
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2017 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1590 of 2017
G. Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Kumar Anurag Singh, Zain A.
D Khan, Kumar Shivam, Jaykrishnan C.D., Ms.Tulika Mukherjee,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Ajit Kr. Sinha,
Sr. Advs. Ms. Ranjana Narayan, Rajesh Ranjan, Praveen, Ms. Saudamini
Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Manish Kumar
E Saran, R. Krishna, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh,
Krishnanand Pandeya, Amitabh Verma, Birendra Bikram, Bankey Bihari,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against
an order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi on 07.06.2017
directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate and to take
appropriate action at the earliest and conclude the investigations preferably
within six months. The High Court held as under:-
“……This Court is of prima facie view that land of the deity
G
could not have been transferred in any case. This large scale
illegality needs to be enquired into. Now the question is, who will
do so? The land and trust which is involved in this case is of
Ranchi. Allegation is against the Government and the Board. Board

H
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN 141
MANDIR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

consists of Government functionaries. In this case, another issue A
is illegally sanctioning of map by Government Officials. We find,
as submitted by the petitioner that in one Public Interest Litigation
being WP(PIL) No. 1531 of 2011 (Har Narain Lakhotia Vs. State
of Jharkhand and Others) this Court directed the CBI to enquire/
investigate the criminality part in giving such sanction in respect
B
of many buildings of Ranchi. The said order has been upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is also one of such case, which
needs investigation.
16. On this background, this Court feels that this matter be also
entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigating
the criminality part. This would also include the aspects and the C
intent involved in creation of Trust Deed dated 20.9.2005,
transfer/conversion of land, permission of maps and all other
incidental issues involved.”
2. The said directions were issued finding that the property of
Deity Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapowan Mandir1 at Ranchi D
has been transferred against the mandate of the Trust Deed created by
the author of the Trust to establish Shree Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir
Trust2 on 25.02.1948. The said Trust was reconstituted on 12.05.1987
by virtue of registered deed. Still further, by another deed dated
20.09.2005, there was again reconstitution of the Trust. E
3. The High Court entertained the Public Interest Litigation
preferred by Respondent No. 8, and held that there is no provision in the
original Trust Deed to transfer/sale of the property of the Deity but with
ulterior motive, new Trust Deed was prepared in the year 2005 to usurp
the property of the Deity and to facilitate illegal transfer of land of the F
Deity.
4. The directions issued by the High Court are subject matter of
challenge before this Court by the Trust and by Pujari of the Mandir.
The argument is that there is provision to develop and transfer the
property of the Deity. Some of the properties of the Trust were being G
illegally encroached by local inhabitants and for better return and to
increase the funds, the properties were transferred. The appropriate
approvals have been obtained from Bihar State Board of Religious Trust
1
Mandir
2
Trust
H
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A and that the learned Judicial Commissioner has granted approval of
transfer of immovable property.
5. The High Court found that properties were endowed to the
Deity by the Trust Deed of 1948 and that the Trustees became
custodian of the same. The subsequent Trust Deed of 1987 again pro-
B hibits the Trustees from selling or transferring or settling a land of the
Mandir or Deity. The Trust Deed of 1948 and that of 1987 were authored
by Mahant Shri Janki Jiwan Sharan but subsequently on 20.09.2005 a
new Trust Deed has been created. Mahant Shri Ram Sharan Dass
registered the said Trust Deed though the founder was Late Janki Jiwan
Sharan. The said Trust Deed has a clause by which landed property can
C be sold.
6. The High Court found that the permission of Jharkhand State
Hindu Religious Trust Board granted in the year 2006 was based upon
permission granted by Bihar State Board of Religious Trust in the year
1994 which was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.
D
7. The writ petitioner has invoked the Public Interest Jurisdiction
of the High Court, inter-alia claiming the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/ direction(s)
or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the
E respondents to conduct an inquiry preferably by an Agency other
than the Agency of the State in the matter of illegal transfer of
property belonging to Sri Ram Janki Tapowan Mandir Trust since
the substantial properties of the trust has been misappropriated
by the members of the Trust in connivance with the government
officials for sale of land belonging to the Trust as well as for
F construction of building over the land considering the fact that the
valuable property of the Trust has been illegally transferred to the
private persons who have the support of the most of the higher
authorities of the State.”
8. The Public Interest Litigation was filed by Respondent No. 8
G projecting himself as a responsible and vigilant citizen of the Country
and being a Hindu by faith, therefore, as under pious responsibility to
protect the interest of the Deity as per his faith. The Respondent No. 8
has not lodged any report before the concerned police station making

H
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN 143
MANDIR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

grievance of any one of the facts stated in the writ petition so as to A
initiate the process of investigations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19733. The writ petitioner has not made any grievance to
any public authority in respect of the alleged transfers by the Trustees
as well.
9. The High Court has passed an order directing investigation
B
by Central Bureau of Investigation by casually returning a finding that
permission was obtained by the Trust by misrepresentation and fraud.
The High Court was again not careful to return findings on the disputed
questions of fact and that too in a public interest writ petition.
10. The vesting of the property in Deity is a religious endowment
but has no public element in it, the grievance of which can be made in a C
writ petition filed in the public interest. We do not say any more than the
fact that the High Court should have refrained from entertaining such
Public Interest Litigation in respect of alleged wrongful sale of property
of the religious bodies.
11. Section 44 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 19504 gives D
power of transfer of immovable property of a religious trust after taking
previous sanction from the Board. Such permission is to convert any
property of the Trust after approval of the District Judge as provided by
Section 28 (j) of the Act. The stand of the appellants is that they have
obtained approval as contemplated by the Act and such approval has E
been sought as an act of prudent management. Therefore, the High
Court was not justified in creating a suspicion on an act of transferring
the land of the Deity.
12. The question as to whether the High Court could direct CBI
to take over investigation in the facts of the present case needs to be F
examined. The Constitution Bench in its judgment reported as State of
West Bengal and Others v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others5 has examined the
question as to the rights of CBI to investigate a criminal offence in a
State without its consent. This Court examined Entry 2 of List II of VII
Schedule of the Constitution. It was held that the legislative power of G
the Union to provide for the regular police force of one State to exercise
power and jurisdiction in any area outside the State can only be exercised
3
Code
4
Act
5
(2010) 3 SCC 571 H
144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A with the consent of the Government of that particular State in which
such area is situated. The Court held that though the Court had wide
powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, but it must
bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these
constitutional powers. This extraordinary power must be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes
B
necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or
where the incident may have national or international ramifications or
where such an order is necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing
fundamental rights. The relevant extract from the judgment reads as
under:-
C “70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to
emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and
226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must
bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of
these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under
D the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as
the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation
in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be
laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised
but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not
to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has
E levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and
instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have
national and international ramifications or where such an order
F may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large
number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult
to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose
its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
G 13. The Court approved earlier two Judge Bench Judgment
reported as Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering
Services, U.P. and Others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another6
wherein it was held that the High Court under Article 226 of the

6
(2002) 5 SCC 521
H
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN 145
MANDIR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

Constitution can direct inquiry to be conducted by CBI but such power A
can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come
to a prima facie conclusion that there is need for such inquiry. It was
held that it is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. The
Court also held that the right to live under Article 21 include the right of
a person to live without being hounded by the police or CBI to find out
B
whether he has committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding
citizen. The relevant extracts from the judgment read as under:-
“5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court under
Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power can be
exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come
to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such inquiry. It C
is not sufficient to have such material in the pleadings. On the
contrary, there is a need for the High Court on consideration of
such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material before
it is sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a requirement
which is clearly deducible from the judgment of this Court in the D
case of Common Cause7. This Court in the said judgment at
paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus: (SCC p. 750, para
174)
“174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to
investigate ‘any other offence’ is wholly erroneous and cannot E
be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation can be given
only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been
committed or a person’s involvement is prima facie established,
but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has
committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a
direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of F
‘LIFE’ and ‘LIBERTY’ guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of
the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of
various decisions of this Court in which the concept of ‘LIFE’
has been explained in a manner which has infused ‘LIFE’ into
the letters of Article 21.” G
6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that the right to
life under Article 21 includes the right of a person to live without
being hounded by the police or CBI to find out whether he has
7
(1999) 6 SCC 667
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A committed any offence or is living as a law-abiding citizen.
Therefore, it is clear that a decision to direct an inquiry by CBI
against a person can only be done if the High Court after
considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that
such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an
investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same
B
cannot be done as a matter of routine or merely because a party
makes some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the
High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that there is a
prima facie case established to direct an inquiry has proceeded
on the basis of “ifs” and “buts” and thought it appropriate that the
C inquiry should be made by CBI. With respect, we think that this is
not what is required by the law as laid down by this Court in the
case of Common Cause.”
14. It is the said findings, which were approved specifically by the
Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal (supra) holding as under:-
D “71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services, U.P. v.
Sahngoo Ram Arya this Court had said that an order directing an
enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after
considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that
such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an
E investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully
concur with these observations.”
15. A three Judge Bench Judgment reported as Sujatha Ravi
Kiran v. State of Kerala and Others8 held thatthe extraordinary power
of the Constitutional Courts in directing CBI to conduct investigation in a
F case must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances, especially,
when there is lack of confidence in the investigating agency or in the
national interest. This Court heldas under:-
“10. Taking into account the law laid down by this Court in
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights 9, direction for
G investigation by CBI was declined by this Court in K. Saravanan
Karuppasamy v. State of T.N.10 and Sudipta Lenka v. State of
Odisha 11.
8
(2016) 7 SCC 597
9
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra)
10
H (2014) 10 SCC 406
11
(2014) 11 SCC 527
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN 147
MANDIR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, A
in the light of the above principles, we are of the view that the
case in hand does not entail a direction for transferring the
investigation from the State police/special team of State police
officers to CBI. The facts and circumstances in which the
offence is alleged to have been committed can be better
B
investigated into by the State police. However, having regard to
the nature of allegations levelled by the petitioner, we deem it
appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to constitute a special
team of police officers headed by an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Inspector General of Police to investigate the matter.”
16. In another three Judge Bench Judgment reported as K.V. C
Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone,
Chennai and Others12, it was held that the Court could exercise its
constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State
investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency only
in rare and exceptional circumstances. The Court gave instances such D
as where high officials of State authorities are involved, or the accusa-
tion itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby
allowing them to influence the investigation, and to instil confidence in
the investigation.
17. In another two Judge Bench Judgment reported as Bimal E
Gurung v. Union of India 13, this Court held that the power of
transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases
where the Court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the
parties and to instil confidence in the public mind. It was held as under:-
“29. The law is thus well settled that power of transferring F
investigation to other investigating agency must be exercised in
rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in
order to do justice between the parties to instil confidence in the
public mind, or where investigation by the State Police lacks
credibility. Such power has to be exercised in rare and
exceptional cases. In K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, this G
Court has noted few circumstances where the Court could
exercise its constitutional power to transfer of investigation from
State Police to CBI such as: (i) where high officials of State
12
(2013) 12 SCC 480
13
(2018) 15 SCC 480 H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A authorities are involved, or (ii) where the accusation itself is against
the top officials of the investigating agency thereby allowing them
to influence the investigation, or (iii) where investigation prima
facie is found to be tainted/biased.”
18. In an earlier two Judge Bench Judgment reported as T.C.
B Thangaraj v. V. Engammal and Others14, this Court found that merely
because complaint was against the police officer, the investigations should
not be entrusted to Central Bureau of Investigation. The Court held as
under:-
“8. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand,
C cited a decision of two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh
Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi)15 in which this Court directed
CBI to register a case and investigate into the complaint of the
appellant because the complaint was against the police officer
and the Court was of the view that the interest of justice would be
better served if the case is registered and investigated by an
D independent agency like CBI.
9. The decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh
Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) will have to be now read in the
light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of
E Democratic Rights. The Constitution Bench has considered at
length the power of the High Court to direct investigation by CBI
into a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within
the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while taking the view that
the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the
F Constitution cautioned that the courts must bear in mind certain
self-imposed limitations.
*** *** ***
11. In the impugned order, the High Court has not exercised its
constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and
G directed CBI to investigate into the complaint with a view to
protect the complainant’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution or to enforce her fundamental rights guaranteed by
Part III of the Constitution. The High Court has exercised its
14
(2011) 12 SCC 328
15
H (2006) 2 SCC 677
SHREE SHREE RAM JANKI JI ASTHAN TAPOVAN 149
MANDIR v. STATE OF JHARKHAND [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

power under Section 482 CrPC on a grievance made by the A
complainant that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan
transaction of Rs 3 lakhs by the three accused persons, was not
being investigated properly because one of the accused persons
is an Inspector of Police. In our considered view, this was not one
of those exceptional situations calling for exercise of
B
extraordinary power of the High Court to direct investigation into
the complaint by CBI. If the High Court found that the
investigation was not being completed because P. Kalaikathiravan,
an Inspector of Police, was one of the accused persons, the High
Court should have directed the Superintendent of Police to
entrust the investigation to an officer senior in rank to the C
Inspector of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC and not to CBI.
12. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on
the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds
that the police have not done their duty or not investigated D
satisfactorily, he can direct the police to carry out the
investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (See Sakiri Vasu
v. State of U.P.16)”
19. We find that the finding recorded by the High Court that the
Deity could not transfer its land in any case is not tenable. The appellant E
relies upon statutory provisions in support of its stand to transfer of land.
The sweeping remarks that the allegations are against the Government
and the Board which consist of Government functionaries; therefore,
the matter requires to be investigated by CBI are wholly untenable and
such sweeping remarks against the Government and/or the Board should
not have been made. The functioning in the Government is by different F
Officers and the working of the Executive has inbuilt checks and balances.
Therefore, merely because, permission has been granted by a functionary
of the State Government will not disclose a criminal offence. The High
Court has thus travelled much beyond its jurisdiction in directing
investigations by CBI in a matter of sale of property of the Deity. Still G
further, the High Court has issued directions without their being any
complaint to the local police in respect of the property of the religious
Trust.
16
(2008) 2 SCC 409
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 8 S.C.R.

A 20. It may be kept in mind that the public order (Entry 1) and the
police (Entry 2) is a State subject falling in List II of the VII Schedule of
the Constitution. It is a primary responsibility of the investigating agency
of the State Police to investigate all offences which are committed within
its jurisdiction. The investigations can be entrusted to Central Bureau of
Investigation on satisfaction of the conditions as specified therein only in
B
exceptional circumstances as laid down in State of West Bengal (supra)
case. Such power cannot and should not be exercised in a routine manner
without examining the complexities, nature of offence and some time
the tardy progress in the investigations involving high officials of the
State investigating agency itself.
C 21. We find that the High Court has completely misdirected itself
in directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over investigation
in a matter which relates to the rights of the trustees to sell property of
a religious Trust or Deity, giving rise to civil dispute.
22. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order of the
D High Court is set aside and the writ petition is thus dismissed.

Devika Gujral Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H