Divine Retreat Centre Vs State of Kerala

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed on 11.03.08 as---- 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.
No judicial order can ever be 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 ones own reputation. In our view, 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 justice.
the Public Interest Litigant must disclose his identity so as to enable the court to decide that the informant is not a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern.
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 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 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 chooseany case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice

State of Punjab Vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors decided on 07.12.11

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as---- legal maxim - nemo debet esse judex in causa propria sua. It applies only when the interest attributed is such as to render the case his own cause. This principle is required to be observed by all judicial and quasi-judicial authorities as non-observance thereof, is treated as a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The failure to adhere to this principle creates an apprehension of bias on the part of the Judge. The question is not whether the Judge is actually biased or, in fact, has really not decided the matter impartially, but whether the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision.
The issue of bias must be raised by the party at the earliest.
If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order for the reason that in such an eventuality the order becomes a nullity and the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. would not operate. In such eventuality, the judgment is manifestly contrary to the audi alteram partem rule of natural justice. The power of recall is different from the power of altering/reviewing the judgment. However, the party seeking recall/alteration has to establish that it was not at fault.
the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgment as the Judge becomes functus officio. Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
35. The provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. closely resemble Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter called the `CPC'), and, therefore, the restrictions which are there to use the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are applicable in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and one such restriction is that there exists no other provision of law by which the party aggrieved could have sought relief.
The rule of inherent powers has its source in the maxim "Quadolex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo ipsa, ess uon potest" which means that when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself could not exist. The order cannot be passed by-passing the procedure prescribed by law.
Before directing CBI to investigate, the court must reach a conclusion on the basis of pleadings and material on record that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The court cannot direct CBI to investigate as to whether a person committed an offence as alleged or not. The court cannot merely proceed on the basis of `ifs' and `buts' and think it appropriate that inquiry should be made by the CBI.
CBI cannot be directed to have a roving inquiry as to whether a person was involved in the alleged unlawful activities.

Popular Muthiah Vs State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as "The High Court cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency." (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 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

Rubabbuddin Sheikh Vs State of Gujarat & Ors (2010) 2 SCC 200

"Therefore, in view of our discussions made hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the court in the criminal proceeding it was not open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any independent agency. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper direction and in order to do complete justice in the case and as the high police officials are involved in the said crime, it was always open to the court to hand over the investigation to the independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered, in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI.

61. Keeping this discussion in mind, that is to say, in an appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI even when the charge-sheet has been submitted, we now deal with the facts of this case whether such investigation should be transferred to the CBI Authorities or any other independent agency in spite of the fact that the charge-sheet has been submitted in court. On this ground, we have carefully examined the eight action taken reports submitted by the State police authorities before us and also the various materials produced and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties."

Krishna Swami Vs Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"investigation connotes discovery and collection of evidence before charge-sheet is filed and based thereon definite charges are framed. Inquiry by a Magistrate is stopped when the trial begins. The trial is a culminating process to convict or acquit an accused. In Service Jurisprudence, departmental inquiry against a delinquent "

Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Anr Vs State of Gujarat 2009 (6) SCC 332

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “it is beyond any cavil that ‘further investigation’ and ‘reinvestigation’ stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior Court in exercise of its Constitutional power, namely, under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a “State” to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior Court would ordinarily issue such a direction.”

Virender Prasad Singh Vs Rajesh Bhardwaj & Ors Deccided by Supreme Court of India on 16.08.10

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, "On its own, the High Court did not go into that exercise to decide as to whether the investigation was required to be done by any other agency. It required help of DGP level officer and his opinion to decide whether the earlier investigation was done properly or not. We are afraid that was not the task. To decide so was the task of the Court alone and no opinion could have been sought for, particularly, in the circumstances of this case. Nothing seems to have been established which would justify calling for such opinion."

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416

Police is, no doubt, under a legal duty and has legitimate right to arrest a criminal and to interrogate him during the investigation of an offence but it must be remembered that the law does not permit use of third-degree methods or torture of accused in custody during interrogation and investigation with a view to solve the crime. End cannot justify the means. The interrogation and investigation into a crime should be in true sense purposeful to make the investigation effective. By torturing a person and using third-degree methods, the police would be accomplishing behind the closed doors what the demands of our legal order forbid. No society can permit it.
State terrorism is no answer to combat terrorism. State terrorism would only provide legitimacy to "terrorism".
It is now an accepted rule of judicial construction that regard must be had to international conventions and norms for construing domestic law when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in the domestic law.

Babubhai Jamnadas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1678-1679 of 2009

“There is little doubt that normally investigation of offences is the function of the investigating agencies and the Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the same. But, at the same time the High Court is vested with such powers, though the same are invoked only in cases where extraordinary facts are involved, necessitating such monitoring by the Courts.” “The Courts, and in particular the High Courts and the Supreme Court, are the sentinels of justice and have been vested with extraordinary powers of judicial review and supervision to ensure that the rights of the citizens are duly protected. The Courts have to maintain a constant vigil against the inaction of the authorities in discharging their duties and obligations in the interest of the citizens for whom they exist. This Court, as also the High Courts, have had to issue appropriate writs and directions from time to time to ensure that the authorities performed at least such duties as they were required to perform under the various statutes and orders passed by the administration. As for example, in the instant case, the High Court had to repeatedly intervene and pass orders to ensure that the investigation was being conducted diligently.” “no doubt that in appropriate cases, the Courts may monitor an investigation into an offence when it is satisfied that either the investigation is not being proceeded with or is being influenced by interested persons.”

Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 226, popularly known as "Hawala case

" in the absence of appropriate legislation and even executive orders in matters of public interest and urgency, the Supreme Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, can issue orders and directions to fill the gap for enforcement of fundamental rights and doing complete justice between the parties.

M.C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 649

whether a charge-sheet should be submitted or not was the concern of the Investigating Agency and the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the same to be filed.

Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. v. `Niyamavedi' (1995) 3 SCC 601

“Any observations which may amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and Courts should be wary of its possible consequences. We say no more.”