Supreme Court flays uncalled-for interference by High Courts
By J. Venkatesan
“It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime”
“Observations coming from higher courts may have their own effect on the course of events”
A Bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy said: “It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what manner the investigation has to proceed.”
Mr. Justice Reddy said, “It is too fairly well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that the saving of the High Court’s inherent power {under Section 482 Cr.P.C.} 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.”
The Bench said “the High Court is not expected to make any casual observations without having any regard to the possible consequences that may ensue from such observations. Observations coming from the higher courts may have their own effect of influencing the course of events and process of law. For that reason, no uncalled for observations are to be made while disposing of the matters and that too without hearing the persons likely to be affected.”
In the instant case, the respondent, M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari registered a case against the appellants D. Venkatasubramaniam and others and even as investigation was on, the respondent filed a petition in the Madras High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the police to seize an amount of Rs. 2.28 lakh from the appellants.
The appellants were aggrieved over the action of the police pursuant to the direction of the High Court threatening them to pay the amount of Rs. 2.28 lakh. The appellants paid Rs.10 lakh in cash and issued a cheque for Rs. 2.18 lakh which was not encashed. The High Court directed the police to complete the investigation within six months. The special leave petitions are directed against this judgment.
Allowing the appeals, the Bench said that the police offered an explanation that the matter was settled voluntarily between the parties and therefore the accused were not arrested and remanded to custody. The Judges said “it is difficult to buy this idea that there was a settlement between the parties in the police station. It is not difficult to discern as to how and under what circumstances the appellants may have agreed to pay the amounts and also issued a cheque.”
The Bench said “It is not known as to how and under what authority the police could intervene and settle any disputes between the parties. It is needless to observe that the police have no such authority or duty of settling disputes.
It is unfortunate that it is the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court in this case that had ultimately resulted in harassment of the appellants as is evident from the subsequent events.”
The Bench said “it is difficult to discern as to how such directions resulting in far-reaching consequences could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court interfered with the investigation of crime which is within the exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police to investigate the case from a particular angle and take certain steps.”
The Bench exhorted the High Courts to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise was justified by the tests laid by the provision itself.
