Holding

The High Court’s order directing the investigation to the CBI was ultra vires; the proper remedy is to direct the Superintendent of Police to assign the investigation to an officer senior to the police inspector under Section 154(3) CrPC.

Summary

The complainant alleged that a police inspector, his wife, and an associate defrauded her of Rs.3 lakh in a loan transaction and that the investigation was halted after the money was returned. She filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to have the case investigated by the CBI, arguing that the presence of a police officer among the accused compromised the investigation. The Madras High Court ordered the investigation to be transferred to the CBI, reasoning that the police had not conducted a proper inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s power to direct CBI investigations under Article 226 is to be exercised only in exceptional situations and was not justified here. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court order and directed the Superintendent of Police to assign the investigation to a senior police officer under Section 154(3) of the CrPC. The appeals were allowed, restoring the normal police investigative process.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can direct a CBI investigation under Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 in a case where a police officer is an accused.
Whether the circumstances of the present case constitute an 'exceptional situation' warranting such extraordinary judicial intervention.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154(3), s. 156(3), s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 409, s. 420, s. 471

Subjects

CBI investigationSection 482 CrPCHigh Court powersArticle 226Police misconductExceptional circumstancesCriminal procedureJudicial review

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 647
~

T. C. THANGARAJ A
V.
V. ENGAMMAL & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1504 of 2011)
JULY 29, 2011 .
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

CODE OF. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

Section 482 rlw ss. 154(3) and 156 (3) - Petition uls 482 c
by complainant seeking direction to entrust the investigation
to CBI stating that one of the accused was a Police Inspector
in the local police - Allowed by High Court - Propriety of Held:
It was not one of the exceptional situations calling for exercise
of extra-ordinary power of the High Court to direct investigation
D
by CBI - Order of High Court quashed and District
Superintendent of Police directed to entrust the investigation
to an officer senior in rank to accused-Inspector of Police .
The respondent in both the .appeals, filed a complaint
against an Inspector of Police and his wife (appellants no. E
2 and 1 in Crl. Appeal no. 1505 of 2011) and their
associate, namely, 'CT' (appellant in Crl. Appeal 1504 of
2011) alleging that appellant no. 2 (accused-t) asked the
complainant and her husband for a loan of Rs. 3 lac and
they handed over the said amount to appellant no. 1, and F
when the complainants' husband approached appellant
no. 2 for refund of the said.amount, the latter referred him
to 'CT,' who issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each,
which were dishonoured. The complaint was registered
as Crime No. 14 of 2006 for offences punishable u/s 409, G
420, 471 read withs. 34 IPC. In the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
filed by the complainant reiterating her prayer to entrust
the case to CBI for proper investigation, the High Cou~
noticed that though some witnesses had been examined,
647 H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A but the investigation was stopped suddenly on the
ground that the complainant had received back the sum
of Rs. 3 lac. The High Court held that the investigating
agency ought to have conducted proper investigation
and filed a final report in accordance with law, but as
B accused no. 1 was an Inspector of Police, the
investigating agency did not do its duty properly. It,
therefore, ordered that Crime No. 14 of 2006 be entrusted
to the CBI for investigation. Aggrieved, the accused filed
the appeals.
c Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 In State of West Bengal and Ors.* the
Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the power
of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to
o direct investigation by the CBI is to be exercised only
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and
such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine
or merely because a party has levelled some allegations
against the local police. In the impugned order, the High
E Court has not exercised its constitutional powers under
Article 226 to direct the CBI to investigate into the
complaint with a view to protect the complainant's
personal liberty under Article 21 or to enforce her
fundamental right guaranteed by Part-Ill of the
F Constitution. The High Court has exercised its power u/
s 482 Cr.P.C. on a grievance made by the complainant
that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan
transaction of Rs.3 lakh by the three accused persons,
was not being investigated properly because one of the
G accused persons is an Inspector of Police. This was not
one of those exceptional situations calling for exercise
of extra-ordinary power of the High Court to direct
investigation into the complaint by the CBI. If the High
Court found that the investigation was not being
completed as an Inspector of Police was one of the
H
T. C. THANGARAJ v. V. ENGAMMAL & ORS. 649

accused persons, it should have directed the A
Superintendent of Police to entrust the investigation to
an officer senior in rank to the accused-Inspector of
Police u/s 154(3) Cr.P .C. and not to the CBI. It should also
be noted that s.156(3) Cr.P.C. provides for a check by the
Magistrate on the police performing their duties and B
where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done
their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct
the Police to carry out the investigation properly, and can
monitor the same. [para 10] [654-F-H; 655-A-C]

*State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection C
of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. 2010 (2) SCR 979
= (2010) 3 sec 571 - followed.
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2007 (12)
SCR 1100 = (2008) 2 sec 409 - relied on D
Ramesh Kumari vs. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) & Ors. 2006
=
(2) SCR 403 (2006) 2 SCC 677, referred to.

1.2 In the result, the impugned order of the High
Court is quashed and the Superintendent of Police of the E
District is directed to entrust the investigation of Crime
No. 14 of 2006 to a police officer senior in rank to accused
/.; no. 1. [para 11] [655-D]

Case Law Reference: F
2010 (2 ) SCR 979 followed para 7
2006 (2 ) SCR 403 referred to para 8
2007 (12) SCR 1100 relied on para 10
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1504 of 2011.
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1505 of 2011. H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.
.-
A R. Anand Padmanabhan, Prithvi Raj B.N. Naveen, Pramod
Dayal for the Appellant.

P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Guru Krishna Kumar, MG, A.T.M.
Ranga Ramanujam, Rajiv Nanda, S. Siddiqui, A.K. Sharma, •
Subramanium Prasad, Anesh Paul, Prasannav, B. Krishna
B
Prasad, S. Ashok Kumar, Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, Sanjeev
Kumar Sharma, Prakhar Sharma, Rani Jethmalani, S.
Thananjayan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Crl.)
No.1589 of 2008.

2. Leave granted. ,I.

D 3. These are two appeals against the order dated •
26.10.2007 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in
Criminal Original Petition No.10987 of 2007 directing that
investigation into the case registered as Crime No.14 of 2006
with the District Crime Branch (DCB), Virudunagar, be
E entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai (for
short 'the CBI').

4. The facts briefly are that on 04.08.2006 a complaint was
submitted by V. Engammal, who has been impleaded as a ..,
respondent in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as 'the
F
complainant'), to the Superintendent of Police, Virudunagar
District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant made following
allegations in the complaint: P. Kalaikathiravan, appellant no.2
in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008,
who was the then S.I. of Town Police Station, told her and her
G husband that he was going to do the business of real estate '
•
and that they should become partners in the business but they
told him that the business will not work and thereafter he asked
them to give a loan of Rs.3 lakh and they handed over Rs.3
lakh to his wife P. Suganthi, appellant no.1 in criminal appeal
H
T. C. THANGARAJ v. V. ENGAMMAL & ORS. 651
[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
-+
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008. P. Kalaikathiravan A
then introduced T.C. Thangaraj, the appellant in criminal appeal
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008, and one Nagendran
who were doing real estate business. When P. Kalaikathiravan
was transferred to Sethur Krishnapuram, the complainant and
1 her husband demanded repayment of Rs.3 lakh, but P. B
Kalaikathiravan asked them to collect the money from T.C.
Thangaraj. T.C. Thangaraj accepted the liability and gave two
cheques dated 30.01.2004 and 04.02.2004 each of Rs.50,000/
-, but the cheques were returned with remarks from the bank
that there were no sufficient funds in the accounts. After P. c
Kalaikathiravan came back to Virudunagar on promotion as
Inspector, her husband went to him many times and demanded
money but he refused to pay the same and sent him away. In
)
the complaint, the complainant requested the Superintendent
of Police to initiate action against the Inspector, P.
" D
Kalaikathiravan, his wife P. Suganthi and T.C. Thangaraj, who
had cheated the complainant and her husband. The
Superintendent of Police sent the complaint to the Office In-
charge of DCB, Police Station Virudunagar, on 04.08.2006 and
the complaint was registered as Crime No.14 of 2006 under
Sections 409, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal E
Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
5. When there was no progress in the investigation on the
complaint, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.8782 of 2006
under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for F
short 'the Cr.P.C.') before the Madras High Court, Madurai
Bench, with a prayer to entrust the case to the CBI for proper
investigation. The High Court in its order dated 13.04.2007
noticed that the case is against a police officer and the
1• grievance of the complainant was that the police department G
was not taking interest in pursuing the matter. The High Court,
however, found that the matter was before the Judicial
Magistrate and disposed of the petition giving liberty to the
complainant to appear before the Judicial Magistrate
concerned and file, if necessary, a protest petition if the case H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A has been treated as a mistake of fact. The High Court further
directed that the Judicial Magistrate shall consider the protest
·<-'
..
';

petition of the respondent keeping in mind the seriousness of
the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the affidavit
filed before the High Court.
B
6. Thereafter, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.10987 of
2007 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the Madras High
Court, Madurai Bench, reiterating her prayer to entrust Crime
No.14 of 2006 to the CBI for proper investigation. The High
Court in the impugned order dated 16.10.2007 took note of the
c fact that the complainant had received back the sum of Rs.3
lakh in question and given a receipt dated 05.08.2006 but she
had a grievance that her complaint had not been properly
k
investigated and the investigating agency should file a final
report in accordance with law. However, the High Court after
D perusing the entire case diary found that some witnesses have
.
been examined but the investigation had been stopped
suddenly on the ground that the complainant had received back
the sum of Rs.3 lakh on 05.08.2006. The High Court held in
the impugned order that even though the amount in question
E had been received back by the complainant, the investigating
agency ought to have conducted proper investigation and filed
a final report in accordance with law, but the investigating
agency had failed to do it. The High Court further held that as i<,

the accused No.1 was an Inspector of Police, the investigating
F agency has not done its duty properly and under the
circumstances, relief claimed by the complainant should be
granted and accordingly ordered that Crime No.14 of 2006 be
entrusted to the CBI for investigation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the >
G
reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order that the '
accused No.1 was an Inspector of Police and therefore the
investigating agency has not done its duty properly, have not
been held to be good reasons for entrusting the investigation
to the CBI by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State ofi
H
- -_..
T. C. THANGARAJ v. V. ENGAMMAL & ORS.
[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
653

A
Rights, West Bengal & Ors. [(2010) 3 SCC 571].

8. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand,
~ cited a decision of two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh
t Kumari v. State (N. C. T. of Delhi) & Ors. reported in (2006) 2 B
SCC 677, in which this Court directed the 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
independent agency like the CBI.
c
9. The decision of the two-Judge Bench ..of this Court in
) Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C. T. of Delhi) & Ors. (supra) will
,,. have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in State oftA~est Bengal & D
Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic··Rights, West
Bengal & Ors. (supra). The Constitution Bench has considered
at length the power of the High Court to directinvestigation by
the CBI into a cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while E
taking the view that the High Court has wide powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution cautioned that the Courts must
_/i bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations. Para 70 of the
!opinion of the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal &
.Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West F
Bengal & Ors. (supra) is extracted hereinbelow :

"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,
.• G
the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers.
The very plenitude of the power under 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 H
.. -·------
-~-----
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R

A 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 levelled
some allegations against the local police. This
B 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 may be
c 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."
D
[Emphasis supplied]

10. It will be clear from the opinion of the Constitution
Bench quoted above that the power of the High Court under
E Article 226 of the Constitution to direct investigation by the CBI
is to be exercised only sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations and an order directing to CBI is not to be passed as
a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some
allegations against the local police. In the impugned order, the
F High Court has not exercised its constitutional powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution and directed the CBI to
investigate into the complaint with a view to protect her personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution or to enforce her
fundamental right guaranteed by Part-Ill of the Constitution. The
G High Court has exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
on a grievance made by the complainant that her complaint that
she was cheated in a loan transaction of Rs.3 lakh 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
H situations calling for exercise of extra-ordinary power of the
T. C. THANGARAJ v. V. ENGAMMAL & ORS. 655
[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

High Court to direct investigation into the complaint by the CBI. A·
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 Inspector of B
Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and not to the CBI. 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 c
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. & Ors. - (2008) 2 SCC 409).
) 11. For these reasons, we quash the impugned order of
the High Court and direct that the Superintend of Police, D
Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu, will entrust the investigation
of Crime No. 14 of2006 to a police officer senior in rank to P.
Kalaikathiravan. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

R.P. Appeals allowed. E