ASHOK KUMAR TODIversusKISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.

                     [2011) 3 S.C.R. 597


                    ASHOK KUMAR TOOi                                 A
                               V.
                 KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2011)
                      MARCH 01, 2011
                                                                     B
    [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120-B read with ss. 306 and 506
- Inter-religious marriage - Unnatural death of husband -
Investigation by the State Criminal Investigation Department         C
(CID) - Writ petition by the mother and the brother of the
deceased seeking transfer of investigation from CID to CBI
on ground of alleged nexus between the police and father-in-
/aw of deceased- Single Judge of the High Court appointing
CBI to enquire into the unnatural death of the husband and           o
giving liberty to the CBI to proceed in accordance with/aw for_
filing charge-sheet before the competent court u/s. 173(2)
Cr.P.C. and to make further investigation if necessary before
it actually files the charge-sheet - Division Bench setting
aside the order of the Single Judge, directing the CBI to start      E
investigation afresh by treating the complaint of the
deceased's brother as FIR and register a case of murder -
Held: Order passed by the Division Bench not sustainable -
When the Single Judge on satisfying himself based on the
materials, particularly, the conduct of the State Police and the     F
apprehension of the mother and brother of the deceased
about getting fair justice at the hands of the State CID directed
investigation by the CBI, t.here cannot be any parallel
investigation by the State CID - Also merely because no
injunction was passed against the CID from continuing with           G
the investigation in the matter or no order was passed
directing the CID to handover all the papers relating to
investigation conducted by them to the CBI, does not mean
that CID was free to continue with their investigation - It cannot
                              597                                    H
    598     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011] 3 S.C.R.

A be said that CBI was appointed as 'Special Officer' to
  investigate - CBI was justified in recording FIR in terms of the
  order passed by the Single Judge - Once an FIR had been
  registered lawfully and investigation had been conducted
  leading to filing of charge sheet before the competent court
B of law for the trial of accused persons, absolutely, there was
  no justifiable reason for the Division Bench to direct re-
  registration of the same by lodging another FIR after three
  years - Fresh investigation into the same a/legation would be
  a futile exercise and would serve no purpose, more
C particularly, when there is no adverse comment on the
  investigation carried out by the CBI - Thus, order passed by
  the Single Judge of the High Court is sustainable and that of
  the Division Bench is set aside - Code of Criminal Procedure,
    1973 - s. 173(2).

D       Social justice: Inter-caste or inter-religious marriage -
  Duty of the administration/police authorities - Held: Is to see
  that if any boy or girl who is major undergoes inter-caste or
  inter-religious marriage, their marital life should not be
  disturbed or harassed - If anyone gives such threat or
E commits acts of violence or instigates, it is the responsibility
  of the officers concerned to take stern action against such
  persons as provided by law - On facts, the Single Judge of
  the High Court rightly held that the police officials were not .
  justified in inte,1ering with the married life of the parties.
F
        According to the prosecution, 'RZ' fell in love with
  'P', the daughter of the appellant. The parties were major
  and they got married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954
  on their own will. The marriage was duly registered
G before the notified authority. Thereafter, 'P' left her
  father's house and started living in her husband's house
  within the jurisdiction of Police Station at place 'K'. She
  informed her father about their marriage and also
  informed the police officials of the Police Station at place

H
  ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 599

  'K' and the Police Station at place 'B'. The brother of the    A
  appellant filed a complaint in police station at place 'K'
  alleging that 'P' was taken away by the deceased by
  deceitful means with intent to marry her. 'P' and 'RZ' were
  summoned. The custody of 'P' was handed over to her
  maternal uncle with condition that she would return to her     8
  husband after one week. Thereafter, the dead body of
  'RZ' was found on the railway tracks between 'D' and 'B'
  Road Stations with injuries and his head smashed. 'RK'·
  brother of the deceased filed a complaint with the police
  station at place 'K' against the appellant. The case was       C
  taken over by the State Criminal Investigation
  Department. The CID carried out the investigation. The
  mother and the brother of the deceased filed a writ
  petition seeking transfer of the case from CID to CBI since
  they were doubtful about fair investigation under CID. The
                                                                 0
  Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order
  dated 16.10.2007 directing the CBI to investigate into the
  cause of the death of the deceased and to file a report in
  a sealed cover before the Court within two months. In
  terms thereof, CBI registered an FIR on 19.10.2007 u/s.
  120-B read with ss. 306 and 506 IPC. Thereafter, CBI filed     E
  a report and sought permission to file charge sheet
  against the appellant, his brother and other relatives u/s.
  120-B read with ss. 306 and 506 IPC. The Single Judge
  passed a final order granting liberty to proceed in
  accordance with law for filing charge sheet before a           F
  competent court u/s. 173(2) Cr.P.C. and also granted
  liberty to conduct further investigation if necessary,
  before it actually files the charge sheet. Pursuant thereto,
  CBI continued with the investigation and filed a charge
  sheet u/s. 120-B read with ss. 306 and 506 IPC against         G .
  the appellant and others. The appellant and others filed
  appeals. The Division Bench of the High Court directed
  the CBI to start investigation in accordance with law
  treating the complaint dated 21.09.2007 filed by 'RK', the
. brother of 'RZ'-deceased as FIR and to register a case of      H
   600      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A murder. Therefore, the cross appeals were filed.
         Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. On the legality of the order of the Single
  Judge of the High Court in directing CBI to investigate
B and submit a report instead of the State CID, the Single
  Judge assigned acceptable reasons. In spite of Sections
  154(3) and 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
  the Police Regulations of Calcutta, the authorities,
  particularly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective
C Department was interested in protraction of the case and
  was not taking any interest in its investigation. The
  Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department,
  and Addi. Dy. Commissioner, Headquarters had
  unauthorisedly intervened in the matter. Since there was
o no allegation of abduction against the deceased, the said
  officers made several attempts to mediate between the
  deceased and his in-laws. Relevant materials were shown
  that the officer-in-charge of the Police Station at place 'K'
  had visited the residence of the deceased, the
E intervention by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective
  Department, in the conjugal life of the deceased was
  uncalled for. Without taking into account the earlier
  decisions of this Court directing the administration/
  authorities to see that spouses of inter-religious marriages
F are not harassed or subjected to threats, the
  Commissioner of Police had made comments, widely
  reported, that the reaction of the parents to the marriage
  was natural and death was due to suicide. There was an
  unholy nexus between the top brass of the Police with
  father-in-law of the deceased. By placing such acceptable
G materials, the writ petitioners expressed doubt about fair
  investigation under the CID and demonstrated that
  investigation by the CBI under the orders of the court is
  necessary, since justice should not only be done but
  seen to be done. Inasmuch as the grievance of the
H
 ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 601

mother and brother of the deceased are acceptable, the            A
Single Judge, by interim order directed the CBI to
investigate into the cause of unnatural death of 'RZ' and
file a report before it. [Para 16] [621-B-H; 622-A]

     1.2. Everyone associated with enforcement of law is 8
expected to follow the directions and failure should be
seriously viewed and drastically dealt with. The directions
of this Court are not intended to be brushed aside and
overlooked or ignored. Meticulous compliance is the only
way to respond to directions of this Court. In the light of C
the direction in Lata Singh's case, it is the duty of all
persons in the administration/police authorities
throughout the country that if any boy or girl who is major
undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, their
marital life should not be disturbed or harassed and if
anyone gives such threat or commits acts of violence or D
instigates, it is the responsibility of the officers concerned
to take stern action against such persons as provided by
law. [Para 17] [623-G-H; 624-A-B]
    Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475        E
- Relied on.

    1.3. In the instant case, the police officials have no
role in the conjugal affairs of 'RZ' and 'P' and the law
enforcing authorities have no right to interfere with their       F
married life and, in fact, they are duty bound to prevent
others who interfere in their married life. The Single Judge
rightly held that the officers of the Police Department
were not justified in interfering with the married life of 'RZ'
and 'P'. [Paras 18 and 19] [624-C-E]
                                                                  G
     1.4. While answering the issues whether it had been
established from the materials on record that there was
genuine apprehension in the mind of the writ petitioners
that there might not be fair investigation at the instance
of the CID in respect of the unnatural death of 'RZ'              H
   602      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A because of the alleged involvement of the high police
  officials of the Police at place 'C' in the post marital
  dispute between the appellant and the deceased on the
  one hand and with his wife on the other, justifying
  investigation by the CBI, thP. Division Bench of the High
B Court committed several infirmities. When the Single
  ,fudge on satisfying himself based on the materials,
  p:. ticularly, the conduct of the State Police and the
  apprehe~sion of the mother and brother of the deceased
  about getting fair justice at the hands of the State CID
c directed investigation by the CBI, there cannot be any
  parallel investigation by the State CID. The conclusion of
  the Division Bench that the Single Judge simply
  appointed the CBI as His Lordships "Special Officer" to
  investigate into the cause of unnatural death of the
0 deceased and to submit a report in a sealed cover,
  cannot be accepted. The order dated 16.10.2007 of the
  Single Judge does not mention that the CBI was being
  appointed as "Special Officer" of the Court. Neither the
  Code authorizes the appointment of CBI officers as
E 'Special Officer' nor the prayers made in the writ petition
  prayed for appointment of the CBI to act as 'Special
  Officer' of the Court. In the interim order, the Single Judge
  decided the question whether investigation by the CID
  was just, fair and proper or whether such investigation
  should be conducted by the CBI. Merely because no
F injunction was passed against the CID from continuing
  with the investigation in the matter or no order was
  passed directing the CID to handover all the papers
  relating to investigation conducted by them to the CBI,
  does not mean that CID was free to continue with their
G investigation. On the other hand, the order dated
  16.10.2007 passed by the Single Judge makes it clear
  that the Single Judge was prima facie satisfied that the
  case in question necessitated investigation by the CBI.
  Thus, the finding of the Division Bench that the Single
H
 ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.                 603

Judge appointed CBI as its "Special Officer" is patently         A
against all canons of justice, equity and fair play in action.
[Paras 20 and 21] [624-F-H; 625-B-D-H; 626-A-C]

     1.5. The Division Bench of the High Court also erred
in holding the order appointing CBI to investigate for the
                                                              8
purpose of submitting report to the Single Judge and not
to investigate for the alleged offence in accordance with
law in place of State CID and thus, conclusion of such
investigation by the CBI cannot form the basis of charge-
sheet in the criminal trial. The Division Bench did not
consider the judgment passed by the Single Judge in C
terms whereof, the Court permitted the CBI to proceed in
accordance with law for filing charge sheet before the
competent Court under Section 173(2) of the Code and
was also granted liberty to conduct further investigation
before it actually files the charge sheet at any point it may D
consider necessary in the interest of justice. CBI at interim
order stage was directed to investigate the case and at
the final order stage was directed to submit charge sheet
after making further investigation. [Para 22] [626-D-F-G]
                                                                 E
     1.6. When the final report is laid after conclusion of
the investigation, the court has the power to consider the
same and issue notice to the complainant to be heard in
case the conclusions in the final report are not in
concurrence with the allegations made by them. Though            F
the investigation was conducted by the CBI, the
provisions under Chapter XII of the Code would apply to
such investigation. The police referred to in the Chapter,
for the purpose of investigation, would apply to the
officer/officers of the Delhi Police Establishment Act. On       G
completion of the investigation, the report has to be filed
by the CBI in the manner provided in Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. [Para 24] [628-B-D]
    H.N. Rishbud and Anr. v. State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC
                                                                 H
    604    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             . [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A 196; State of M. P. v. Mubarak Ali AIR 1959 SC 707;
  Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors.
  (2000) 8 SCC 323; Hemant Dhasmana vs. Central Bureau
  of Investigation and Another, (2001) 7 sec 536 - relied on

       1.7. The Division Bench failed to appreciate the order
8
  dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Single Judge directing
  the CBI to investigate into cause of unnatural death of
  'RZ'. As per Section 2(h) of the Code investigation
  includes all the proceedings under this Code for
  collection of evidence conducted by a police officer. The
C direction to conduct investigation requires registration of
  an FIR preceding investigation and, therefore, had to be
  treated as casting an obligation on the CBI to first register
  an FIR and thereafter, proceed to find out the cause of
  death, whether suicidal or homicidal. In order to find out
D whether the death of 'RZ' was suicidal or homicidal,
  investigation could have been done only after registration
  of an FIR. Therefore, CBI was justified in recording FIR
  on 19.10.2007 in terms of the order dated 16.10.2007
  passed by the Single Judge. [Para 25] [628-E-G]
E
      1.8. The inquiry/investigation under Section 174 read
  with Section 175 of the Code may continue till the
  outcome of the cause of the death. Depending upon the
  cause of death, police has to either close the matter or
F register an FIR. In the case on hand, as per the post
  mortem report, the cause of death of 'RZ' was due to the
  effect of ten injuries on the body and which were anti
  mortem in nature. In such circumstances, the
  proceedings under Section 174 of the Code were not
G permissible beyond 22.09.2007 and registration of an FIR
  was natural outcome to ascertain whether the death was
  homicidal or suicidal. Accordingly, in terms of order dated
  16.10.2007, CBI registered an FIR on 19.10.2007 under
  Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 506 IPC. The
H
 ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 605


contrary observations made about the orders of the A
Single Judge cannot be sustained. The Division Bench
erred in directing the CBI to start investigation afresh in
accordance with law by treating the complaint of 'RK'
brother of the deceased dated 21.09.2007 as FIR and to
register a case of murder. All this had already been done B
by CBI three years back. There is no need to register
another FIR when in respect of the same offence an FIR
had already been registered. Once an FIR had been
registered lawfully and investigation had been conducted
leading to filing of charge sheet before the competent C
court of law for the trial of accused persons, absolutely,
there was no justifiable reason for the Division Bench to
direct re-registration of the same by lodging another FIR
after three years and proceed with the investigation
which had already been concluded by the CBI. [Para 26)
                                                            0
[628-H; 629-A-C-D-G]
    1.9. The Division Bench of the High Court failed to
note that the fresh investigation into the same allegation
would be a futile exercise and no purpose would be
served by investigating the case afresh, more particularly, E
when there is no adverse comment on the investigation ·
carried out by the CBI. The de novo investigation by
lodging another FIR would result in delay of justice since
the Division Bench has ordered to conduct the same
investigation under the same sections started three years F
back by the same agency, namely, the CBI. The
reasonings of the Division Bench for a fresh investigation
by the CBI cannot be sustained. [Para 27] [629-H; 630-A·
BJ
     1.10. With regard to the directions passed by the G
High Court about the conduct of the officers and taking
action against them on the departmental side, it is
clarified that the concerned department is free to take
appropriate action in accordance with the statute/rules/
                                                           H
    606     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A various orders applicable to them, after affording
  reasonable opportunity of hearing. It should not be taken
  as neither the High Court nor this Court concluded the
  issue about the allegations made against them. However,
  the observation of the Single Judge in respect of the
B conduct of the officers in interfering with the conjugal
  affairs of the couple even without any formal complaint
  against any one of them is accepted. [Para 28) [630-C-D]

         1.11. The Single Judge of the High Court is fully
C   justified in passing interim order on 16.10.2007 appointing
    the CBI to investigate into the unnatµral death of 'RZ' and
    submit a report; and that the Single Judge's final order
    dated 14.08.2008 accepting the report and granting
    opportunity to the CBI to proceed in accordance with law
    for filing charge sheet before the Competent Court under
D   Section 173(2) of the Code is accepted. All the reasonings
    recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court in the
    order dated 18.05.2010 are unacceptable and are set
    aside. Pursuant to the orders of the Single Judge, after
    investigation, CBI has filed charge sheet on 20.09.2008
E   under Section 120-B read with Sections 306 and 506 IPC.
    In view of the same, the appellant was in custody for 45
    days and on the orders of this Court, he was ordered to
    be released and also of the fact that all other accused
    were enlarged, no further custody is required. However,
F   it is made clear that CBI is free to move an application
    before the court concerned for appropriate direction, if
    their presence is required. Any action against the officers
    of the State Police Department, as suggested by the
    Single Judge, shall be in accordance with law and service
G   conditions applicable to them and after affording
    opportunity to them. [Para 29) [630-E-H; 631-A-D]

      State of West Bengal and Others vs. Committee for
  Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others
H (2010) 3 SCC 571 - Referred to.
  ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.                    607


                        Case Law Reference:                           A
      (201 O) 3 sec 571          Referred to.          Para 14
      (2006) 5 sec 475           Relied on.            Para 17
      AIR 1955 SC 196            Relied on.            Para 23         B
      AIR 1959 SC 707            Relied on.             Para 23
      (2000) a sec 323           Relied on.             Para 23
      (2001) 1 sec 536           Relied on              Para 24
                                                                      c
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
 Appeal No. 602 of 2011 etc.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 18.5.2010 of the High
 Court at Calcutta in MAT No. 703 of 2008.
                                                                      ·o
                               WITH

  C.A. No. 2204-2209 of 2011 & Crl. A. No. 603-608 of 2011.

         Gopal Subramanium, SG, H.P. Raval, ASG, U.U. Lalit,
    Kalyan Bandopadhyay, P.P. Rao, D. Roy Choudhary, V.A.              E
    Mohta, Sudhir Nandrajaog, P.K. Dey, RajeP.v Nanda, Shweta
    Verma, Harsh, A.K. Sharma, Amit Basu, Rana Mukherjee, D.N.
    Mitra, Ayen Chakrabotry (for M/s. Victor Moses & Associates),
· · Abhijit Sengupta, M. lndrani, B.P. Yadav, K. Datta, Atul Singh,
    Abhay Kumar, Kishore Dutta, Suchit Mohanty, Mangaljit              F
    Mukherjee, Anupam Lal Das, P. Roy Choudhary, Anjan
    Chakraborty, A. Chakraborty, lndranil Ghosh, Goodwill lndeevar,
    Deepak Bhatcharya, S.J. Amith, Kiran Suri, Ashok Kr.
    Mukherjee, Soumya Chakraborty, Krishnendu Bhattacharya,
    Dharma Raj Vohra, Atul, Abhay Kumar, Tenzing Tsering, Taran        G
    Chandra Sharma, Neelam, Sharma, Manish Srivastava,
    Praveen Agarwal for the appearing parties.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                       H
    608      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A         P.SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. These appeals are directed against the common
  judgment and final order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the
  Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in M.A.T. Nos.
B 703, 895, 704, 713, 714 and 744 of 2008 whereby the CBI was
  directed to start investigation afresh in accordance with law
  treating the complaint dated 21.09.2007 filed by Rukbanur
  Rahman, brother of Rizwanur Rahman - the deceased, as F.l.R.
  and to register a case of murder.

C 3. Brief facts:

          (a) One Rizwanur Rahman-the deceased, a Computer
    Graphics Engineer fell in love with a girl, namely, Priyanka Todi,
    daughter of Ashok Kumar Todi. On 18.08.2007, Rizwanur
D   Rahman married Priyanka Todi under the Special Marriage Act,
    1954 in the marriage registration office. On 31.08.2007,
    Priyanka Todi left her father's house and started living in her
    husband's home at Tiljala within the jurisdiction of Karaya
    Police Station, Kolkata. The couple informed the Police
E   Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner of Police(South), the
    Superintendent of Police, 24 Parganas (S), the Officer-in-
    charge, Karaya Police Station and the Officer-in-charge,
    Bidhan Nagar Police Station about their marriage by a letter
    dated 31.08.2007 along with a copy of the Marriage
F   Registration Certificate. On the same day, Priyanka Todi
    informed her father about her marriage with the deceased and
    also of the fact of her residing with her husband in her in-law's
    house. On the very same day, in the evening, around 6.30 p.m., ·
    Ashok Kumar Todi-Priyanka Todi's father, Anil Saraogi -
    maternal uncle of Priyanka Todi and Pradip Todi - brother of
G   Ashok Kumar Todi went to the house of the deceased and
    persuaded him and his family members to send Priyanka Todi
    back to their house but Priyanka Todi did not agree to their
    request. On the same night, Ashok Kumar Todi lodged a
    complaint at Karaya Police Station and consequently two police
H   officers went to the residence of the deceased to create mental
 ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 609
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
pressure on him. On 01.09.2007, early in the morning, Ashok A
Kumar Todi and Anil Saraogi threatened the deceased that if
Priyanka Todi did not return back to her parents' house, they
would face the dire consequences. On the same day, Pradip
Todi lodged a complaint with Deputy Commissioner of Police
(Detective Department) alleging that Priyanka Todi has been B
taken away by the deceased by deceitful means with intent to
marry her. On various dates, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police (DD) called Priyanka Todi and her husband at his office
and asked Priyanka Todi to go back to her parents' house, but
she refused to accept the proposal. On 08.09.2007, Pradip Todi  c
made another application to police that Priyanka Todi has been
detained forcibly by the deceased. On the action of the
complaint, the sub-Inspector went to the residence of the
deceased and summoned the couple to Police Headquarter,
Lal Bazar, Kolkata and the custody of Priyanka Todi was 0
handed over to her uncle Anil Saraogi with condition that she
will return to her husband's house after one week.

     (b) On 21.09.2007, the dead body of Rizwanur Rahman
was found on the railway tracks between Oum Oum and Bidhan
Nagar Road Stations with injuries and the head smashed. On E
the same day, Rukbanur Rahman-the brother of the deceased,
lodged a written complaint with Karaya Police Station
suspecting the hands of Ashok Kumar Todi behind the unnatural
death of his brother and the same was registered as UD Case
No. 183 of 2007. The body of the deceased was sent for post F ..
mortem. The post mortem report revealed that the death was
due to 10 injuries on the body and consistent with the injuries
caused by train running at moderate speed. On 24.09.2007,
the case was taken over by the Criminal Investigation
Department (in short "the CID"). The CID carried out G
investigation and examined various witnesses including Ashok
Kumar Todi and his family members.

     (c) The mother and brother of the deceased filed Writ
Petition No. 21563(W) of 2007 before the Calcutta High Court.   H
     610      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A    The learned single Judge of the High Court, after hearing the
     parties, by an interim order dated 16.10.2007 directed the CBI
     to investigate into the cause of death of the deceased and to
     file a report in a sealed cover before the Court within two
     months. Pursuant to the abovesaid direction, the CBI registered
B    case bearing No. RC.8(S)/2007-SIU~llCBl/SCR.1/New Delhi
     under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 506 of the
     Indian Penal Code (in short "the IPC") against Ashok Kumar
     Todi and others. On 08.01.2008, the CBI filed report before the
     learned single Judge which indicates that the deceased
c    committed suicide by laying before the train and sought
     permission to file charge sheet against Ashok Kumar Todi, his
     brother Pradeep Todi, Anil Sarogi, S.M. Mohiuddin @ Pappu,
     Ajoy Kumar, Sukanti Chakraborty and Krishnendu Das under
     Section 120-B read with Sections 306 and 506 IPC.
D          (d) After considering the case, the learned single Judge
     of the High Court, by final order dated 14.08.2008, granted
     liberty to the CBI to proceed in accordance with law for filing
     charge sheet before a competent court under Section 173(2)
     of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
E    "the Code"). Liberty was also reserved to the CBI to conduct
     further investigation before it actually files the charge sheet.
     Pursuant to that order, CBI continued with the investigation and
     filed a charge sheet being No. 07/08 dated 20.09.2008 under
     Section 120-B read with Sections 306 and 506 IPC in the court
-F   of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bank Shell Court, Kolkata. In -
     the said charge sheet, Ashok Kumar Todi, Pradeep Todi, Anil
     Saraogi, Sukanti Chakraborti and Krishnendu Das, S.M.
     Mohiuddin @ Pappu, Ajoy Kumar were arrayed as accused.
     Subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet, all the accused
G    persons surrendered before the Court of Metropolitan
     Magistrate and were taken into custody, and subsequently, all
     the accused persons were released on bail on different dates.

         (e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14.08.2008
H    passed by the learned single Judge, Ashok Kumar Todi and
 ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.                    611
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
others filed their respective appeals before the Division Bench      A
of the High Court of Calcutta. The Division Bench of the High
Court heard all the appeals together and by impugned judgment
and order dated 18.05.2010 set aside the judgment and order
dated 14.08.2008 passed by the learned single Judge and
directed the CBI to start investigation afresh in accordance with    B
law by treating the complaint dated 21.09.2007 filed by the
brother of the deceased as F.l.R. and to register a case of
murder and further directed to complete the investigation
preferably within a period of four months from the date of the
order. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated            c
18.05.2010, Ashok Kumar Todi filed S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5005 of
2010, the mother and brother of th~ deceased filed S.L.P.(C)
Nos. 29951-29956 of 2010 and the C.B.I. filed S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos.
7008-7013 of 201 O before this Court. Hence these appeals by
special leave.
                                                                     D
     3. Heard Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Solicitor
General for the CBI, Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for
Ashok Kumar Todi, Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned senior
counsel for mother and brother of Rizwanur Rahman - the
deceased and Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, learned counsel for the          E
State of West Bengal. In addition, we also heard other counsel
in respect of certain directions/observations about the
departmental action to be initiated against the State Police
Officers by the State Government.
                                                                     F
      4. Mrs. Kiswar Jahan and Rukbanur Rahman-mother and
borther of the deceased filed Writ Petition No. 21563 of 2007
before the High Court at Calcutta praying for directions against
the State of West Bengal and their officers that the investigation
in connection with the unnatura! death of Rizwanur Rahman            G
being UD Case No. 183 of 2007 be handed over to CBI and
that the CBI should submit a report on such investigation before
the High Court and upon such investigation appropriate orders
be passed. Apart from the above relief, they also prayed for
certain directions for taking action against the officers of the
~tate Police Department. Before considering the final order in       H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A the said writ petition, it is useful to refer to the interim direction
  of the learned single Judge dated 16.10.2007. By pointing out
  mandates of Sections 154(3) and 156(1) of the Code and the
  Police Regulations of Calcutta, it was submitted before the
  learned single Judge that the authorities, particularly, the
B Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department was
  interested in protraction of the case and not in its investigation.
  It was also highlighted that several other officers had
  unauthorisedly intervened in the matter. It was the grievance of
  the writ petitioners that in spite of the fact that Rizwanur Rahman
c and Priyanka Todi married voluntarily and by their free will on
  18.08.2007, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in the
  Marriage Registration Office, because of the influence of Ashok
  Kumar Todi-father of Priyanka Todi, higher authorities in the
  police department without following the judgment of this Court
D which directs the administration/authorities to see that spouses
  of inter-religious marriages are not harassed or subjected to
  threats, instead of allowing investigation to take its course in
  accordance with the provisions of law, the Commissioner of
  Police had made comments, widely reported, that the reaction
  of the parents to the marriage was natural and death was due
E to suicide. It was also projected before the learned single Judge
  that the police authorities were beneficiaries of undue favours
  at the instance of Ashok Kumar Todi. It was asserted that no
  fair investigation by the CID is possible in a manner where the
  allegation is against the highest brass of the Calcutta Police.
F In those circumstances and by placing reliance on various
  materials/instances about the interference by the police
  authorities on various occasions in the marital life of Rizwanur
  Rahman and Priyanka Todi, the writ petitioners prayed for a fair
  investigation by the CBI under the directions of the High Court.
G
       5. Learned Advocate General who appeared for the State
  of West Bengal before the High Court resisted the prayer in
  the writ petition and contended that the writ petition is not
  maintainable and further argued that mere allegations of threat
H is not a cognizable offence and there was no complaint before
   ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 613
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 the police except the letter dated 18.09.2007 by one Sadiq A
 Hussain which did not mature. It was further argued that the
 provisions of Section 154(1) of the Code are not attracted. It
 was pointed out by learned Advocate General that the
 appropriate remedy under the statute would have been a
 complaint before the Magistrate and not a petition under Article B
 226 of the Constitution before the High Court since the
 petitioners must demonstrate that they have legal and personal
 right which has been violated. Moreover, it was pointed out that
 the CID is carrying on an enquiry though not an investigation
 into the cause of unnatural death. Further, there is no violation c
 of fundamental rights of the writ petitioners under Articles 19
 and 21 of the Constitution.
        6. After recording the finding that the deceased can no
   longer seek redressal for any injury caused to him and it is only
   his near relatives, who are mother and brother, can make a D
   prayer by filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
   after adverting to the marriage on 18.08.2007 and various
   instances on which the police officers intervened in their
 . personal life, threatened them and after satisfying that prima
   facie the investigation carried out by the State CID is not in E
, accordance with the provisions of the Code, the learned single
   Judge of the High Court passed an interim order directing the
   CBI to investigate into the cause of unnatural death of Rizwanur
   Rahman and to file a report in a sealed cover within a period
   of two months from the date of service of the copy of the said F
   order.

      7. Pursuant to the interim direction dated 16.10.2007, an
 FIR was registered on 19.10.2007. In the said FIR, apart from ·
 the required details, various directions given in the order of the G
 High Court dated 16.10.2007 were incorporated. The
 Superintendent of Police, CBI after finding that the facts stated
 in the complaint coupled with the directions of the High Court
 vide its order dated 16.10.2007, prima facie disclosed
 commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC H
    614       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A   read with Sections 302 and 506 IPC and substantive offences
    thereof against Ashok Kumar Todi and others, registered a
    regular case and started investigation.

         8. Pursuant to the interim direction of the High Court, the
B   CBI filed its report and prayed for leave of the Court to file
    charge-sheet before the competent Court having jurisdiction.
    Based on the said report as well as the leave sought for in the
    writ petition, after hearing the arguments of either side, the
    learned single Judge framed the following issues for
    determination:
c
          (i) Should the writ petition fail owing to the petitioners not
          taking recourse to efficacious alternative remedy provided
          by the Code?

D         (ii) Should the writ petition fail because it does not disclose
          any cause of action, because adjudication of the issues
          would involve resolving hotly disputed facts and because
          of defective verification of pleadings, as contended by Mr.
          Pal?
E         (iii) Whether 'Kolkata Police's inaction' vis-a-vis the
          complaint lodged by the couple and 'Kolkata Police in
          action' vis-a-vis complaints of Pradeep Todi impugned
          herein justified? Is respondent no. 3 responsible in any
          manner?
F
          (iv) Did any of the city "police officers (respondent Nos.
          5,7,8 & 9) act ultra vires in discharge of official duties?

          (v) Whether investigation conducted by the State Police
          agencies was in accordance with law?
G
          (vi) Whether the facts and circumstances presented before
          the Court called for entrusting the CBI with investigation of
          cause of death of Rizwanur Rahman?

H         (vii) Whether the CBI acted ultra vires in registering an
 ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 615
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    FIR for alleged offence of murder and conducted A
    investigation on the basis thereof in a manner not
    authorized by law?

    (viii) Are the parties entitled to have a copy of the report
    of the CBI filed in Court?
                                                                    B
    (ix) Is the CB.I justified in expressing views in relation to
    recommending to the State initiation of disciplinary
    proceedings for major penalty against some of the
    respondents.
                                                                    c
    (x) Whether the CBI should be allowed to proceed further
    on the basis of materials collected by it in course of
    investigation?

    (xi) To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled?
                                                                    D
     9. After analysis and having full-fledged hearing, the
learned single Judge arrived at the following conclusion:

     (i)    When an individual perceives a threat to his life and
            limb and seeks enforcement of his right to life, E
            interference of the writ court may be more intrusive
            but to lay down as a matter of rule that a writ petition
            must be entertained whenever right guaranteed by
            Article 21 is sought to be enforced despite
            availability of an alternative remedy would itself F
            result in impinging on exercise of judicial
            description by the writ court.

     (ii)   A man is born free and has the right to stay free
            unless he indulges in unlawful activities which, if
            proved, may result in' penal consequences G
            depriving him of such right. The Constitution
            guaranteed this right to Rizwanur Rahman. By
            marrying Priyanka Todi, he did not commit any
            crime. Evidence on record is considered sufficient
            to demolish the allegation leveled against him by H
    616       SUPREME COURT REPORTS .                  [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A                 Pradeep Todi. He had, therefore, the absolute right
                  to live a life which is decent, complete, fulfilling and
                  worth living. The objection that hotly disputed facts
                  are involved which necessarily cannot be
                  adjudicated by the Writ Court is equally
B                 unmeritorious.

          (iii)   The third respondent therein - Commissioner of
                  Police, Kolkata, acted irresponsibly and instead of
                  diffusing tension, he added fuel to fire.

C         (iv)    By summoning Rizwanur Rahman without
                  registering any cognizable case against him on the
                  basis of the complaints of Pradeep Todi and/or by
                  invading Rizwanur's previous right to life despite
                  being well and truly aware that Priyanka Todi had
D                 married him on her own without pressure exerted
                  from any quarter, respondents 5, 7, 8 and 9 therein
                  jointly and severally are guilty of exceeding police
                  powers conferred on them and thereby have acted
                  ultra vires the Constitution.
E
          (v) (vi) While passing the interim order on 16.10.2007, the
                  learned single Judge duly considered the materials
                  presented and on finding that the investigation by
                  the State CID was not proper, therefore, the CBI
                 was directed to investigate the cause of death of
F                 Rizwanur Rahman.

          (vii)   In the facts and circumstances which fall for
                  consideration on 16.10.2007, the Court is of the
                  considered view that entrusting the CBI with
G                 investigation of cause of unnatural death of
                  Rizwanur Rahman cannot be said to be improper
                  or unwarranted and the Court was justified in
                  directing CBI investigation. The CBI was justified in
                  recording an FIR before it proceeded to conduct
H                 investigation.
 ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.                       617
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

      (viii) So long as the investigation is not closed by way          A
             .of filing of a Final report under Section 173(2) of
              the Code, persons who might be shown as
              accused in the FIR have no right to claim copy of
              the report containing materials which have been
              collected against them and, particularly, in view of      B
              the fact that report filed before the High Court is not
              a final report but is one in aid of the final report.

      (ix)   On the basis of the materials collected, it was
             beyond the jurisdiction of the CBI to make a               C
             recommendation for initiation of major penalty
             proceedings against some of the police officers
             without obtaining leave from the Court.

      (x)    There is no reason as to why CBI should not be
             allowed to proceed further.                                D

      (xi)   Interest of justice would be best served if liberty is
             reserved unto the State to proceed in accordance
             with law. Accordingly, it is observed that the State
             may initiate such action as it deems fit and proper        E
             against any of or all the respondents in accordance
             with law.

      10. The abovesaid order of the learned single Judge was
taken up by way of appeal before the Division Bench by Ashok
Kumar Todi, Pradip Todi, Anil Saraogi, Kishwar Jahan and                F
others and State of West Bengal. The Division Bench, after
going through the order of the learned single Judge as well as
the rival contentions of all the parties, determined the following
questions namely, :
                                                                        G
      (a)    Whether, the learned single Judge was justified in
             passing the order impugned?

      (b)    Whether in addition to the order impugned, the
             Court should have passed direction for indicting the
                                                                        H
    618       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A                two police officers in the criminal proceedings on
                 the basis of the allegations made in the writ
                 application?

       11. The Division Bench, after finding that a direction for
B investigation by the CBI should not be granted on mere asking
  for, in the absence of any prohibitory or injunction order,
  preventing the State CID from further investigation commented
  on the conduct of the State police in not perusing the
  investigation, concluded that:
c         (i) Interim order dated 16.10.2007 of the learned single
          Judge did not authorize the CBI to investigate in terms of
          Chapter XII of the Code in place of the State CID.

          (ii) The order of the learned single Judge directing
D         investigation and, consequently, the report submitted by the
          CBI and permitting the CBI to submit such report in the form
          of charge-sheet in the Court are quashed.

          (iii) The investigation conducted by the CBI cannot be
          treated to be an investigation within the meaning of the
E         Code. Recommendation of the CBI to take disciplinary
          measures against the Police Officers by virtue of the
          interim order of the learned single Judge are quashed.

          (iv) For violation of Article 21, a writ Court cannot
F         conclusively decide, whether violation amounts to penal
          laws, ignoring the provisions of the Code for trial of such
          offences. The Court can give special protection to the
          accused in such trial and the procedure of such trial is
          different from the one provided for the disposal of a writ
G         application. In view of the same, the aggrieved person is
          not entitled to file an application under Article 226 of the
          Constitution asking the High Court to decide the issue.

         12. After observing and arriving at such conclusion,
    ultimately, the Division Bench, by the impugned order, set aside
H
  ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.                     619
             [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
 the order of the learned single Judge and on the basis of its         A
 own finding recorded that it is a fit case for investigation by the
 CBI, directed the CBI to start investigation afresh in accordance
 with law treating the complaint dated 21.09.2007 filed by writ
 petitioner No. 2 (Rukbanur Rahman) as an FIR and to register
 a case of murder.                                                     B

      13. On analysis of the orders of the learned single Judge
 and the Division Bench as well as the issues raised and various
 contentions by the counsel for either side, following points arose
 for determination in these appeals:
                                                                       c
      (i) whether the order of the learned single Judge appointing
 CBI to enquire into the unnatural death of Rizwanur Rahman and
 further direction giving liberty to the CBI to proceed in
 accordance with law for filing charge sheet before the
 competent court under Section 173(2) of the Code and to take          D
 further investigation before it actually files the charge-sheet on
 any point it may consider necessary in the interest of justice is
 acceptable and sustainable? or;
       (ii) whether the decision of the Division Bench, setting        E
 aside the order of the learned single Judge, directing the CBI
 to start investigation afresh by treating the complaint of the writ
 petitioner No. 2 therein-Rukbanur Rahman dated 21.09.2007
 as FIR and to register a case of murder is sustainable?

      14. Since the mother and brother of the deceased-                F
  Rizwanur Rahman had a doubt about his unnatural death and
· they were not satisfied with the investigation by the State CID
  as well as due .to mounting pressure by higher officials of the
  State Police Department, they prayed for an appropriate
  direction at the hands of the High Court for investigation by the G
  CBI. In State of West Bengal and Others vs. Committee for
  Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Others
  (2010) 3 sec 571, the issue which was referred for the opinion
  of the Constitution Bench was whether the High Court, in
  exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution H
    620       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A of India, can direct the CBI established under the Delhi Special
  Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short "the Special Police
  Act") to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to
  have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State,
  without the consent of the State Government. The Constitution
B Bench, after adverting to the required factual details, rival
  contentions and the relevant constitutional provisions has
  concluded:-

          "69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question
          referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise
c         of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to
          CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have
          been committed within the territory of a State without the
          consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal
          structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of
D         separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the
          protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and
          the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction
          but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights,
          guaranteed by Part Ill in general and under Article 21 of
E         the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly."

  After saying so, the Constitution Bench has clarified that this
  extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously
  and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
F provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or
  where the incident may have national and international
  ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for
  doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.

       15. In view of the above judgment, it is unnecessary to
G delve into the issue further about appointment of special agency
  like CBI for investigation under the orders of the High Court. In
  fact, in view of the above decision, almost all the counsel
  appearing on either side have no quarrel about the issue and
  their present grievance is whether the order of the learned
H
     ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 621
                [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

    single Judge is to be implemented or the impugned order of A
    the Division Bench is to be applied?

          16. On the legality of the order of the learned single Judge
    in directing CBI to investigate and submit a report instead of
    the State CID, we are of the view that the learned single Judge'      8
    assigned acceptable reasons. It was highlighted by learned.
    senior counsel for the mother and brother of the deceased that
•   in spite of Sections 154(3) and 156( 1) of the Code and the
    Police Regulations of Calcutta, the authorities, particularly, the
    Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department was               C
    interested in protraction of the case and was not taking any
    interest in its investigation. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
     Detective Department, and Addi. Dy. Commissioner,
     Headquarters had unauthorisedly intervened in the matter.
     Since there was no allegation of abduction against the
    deceased, the said officers made several attempts to mediate          D
  · between the deceased and his in-laws. Relevant materials were
    shown that the officer-in-charge of the Karaya Police Station had
     visited the residence of the deceased, the intervention by
     Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, in the
     conjugal life of the deceased was uncalled for. It was also          E
     highlighted that without taking into account the earlier decisions
     of this Court directing the administration/authorities to see tnat
     spouses of inter-religious marriages are not harassed or
     subjected to threats, the Commissioner of Police had made
     comments, widely reported, that the reaction of the parents to       F
     the marriage was natural and death was due to suicide. The
     learned senior counsel has also highlighted unholy nexus
     between the top brass of the Police with father-in-law of the
     deceased. By placing such acceptable materials, the writ
     petitioners expressed doubt about fair investigation under the       G
     CID and demonstrated that investigation by the CBI under the
     orders of the court is necessary, since justice should not only
     be done but seen to be done. Inasmuch as the grievance of the
     mother and brother of the deceased are acceptable, the learned
    single Judge, by interim order dated 16.10.2007, directed the         H
    622       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 3 S.C.R

A   CBI to investigate into the cause of unnatural death of Rizwanur
    Rahman and file a report before it.

    Interference by the police in conjugal life

          17. In the earlier paragraphs, we have already adverted
B to certain factual details about the marriage of Rizwanur
  Rahman with Priyanka Todi. They themselves highlighted how
  they married and informed the same to the authorities
  concerned. The materials placed show that Rizwanur Rahman
  fell in love with Priyanka Todi, the daughter of Ashok Kumar
C Todi, and married her on 18.08.2007 under the Special
  Marriage Act, 1954. They also registered their marriage before
  the notified authority and obtained the certificate for the same.
  Pursuant to the same, Priyanka Todi left her father's house on
  31.08.2007 and went to live in her husband's house at Tijala
D Lane within the jurisdiction of Karaya Police Station, Kolkata.
  She informed her father about their marriage and also informed
  the Police Commissioner as well as Dy. Commissioner of
  Police (South), Superintendent of Police, 24 Parganas (S), the
  Officer-in-charge, Karaya Police Station and the Officer-in-
E charge, Bidhan Nagar Police Station. On a complaint made by
  Pradip Todi, Priyanka Todi and Rizwanur Rahman were
  summoned to Police HQ., Lalbazar, Kolkata on 08.09.2007 and
  the custody of Priyanka Todi was handed over to Anil Saraogi
  - her maternal uncle with condition that she will return to her
F husband after one week. Thereafter, the dead body of Rizwanur
  Rahman was found on 21.09.2007 on the railway tracks
  between Oum Dum and Bidhan Nagar Road Stations with
  injuries and his head smashed. We have also noted the details .
  furnished by the mother and brother of the deceased about the
G interference by the various police officers in their marital efforts.
  In this regard, it is useful to refer to the law laid down by this
  Court in practice and procedure in a matter involving freedom
  of conscience and expression in terms of right to marry person
  of one's choice outside one's caste. The following observation
H and direction in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2006) 5
  sec 475 is relevant:
 ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS.                     623
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
           "17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and A
    the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing
    the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the
    challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste .
    marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will
    result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing B
    news are coming from several parts of the country that
    young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage,
    are threatened with violence, or violence is actually
    committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence
    or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who c
    commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and
    democratic country, and once a person becomes a major
    he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents
    of the boy or girl do not approve of su~h inter-caste or inter-
    religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they
                                                                      0
    can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but
    they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of
    violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes
    such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore,
    direct that the administration/police author~ties throughout E
    the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major
    undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a
    woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed
    by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and
    anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits
    acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken F
    to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police
    against such persons and further stern action !s taken
    against such persons as provided by law. "
Even as early as in 1990, this Court has held that everyone           G
associated with enforcement of law is expected to follow the
directions and failure shall be seriously viewed and drastically
dealt with. We also reiterate that the directions of this Court are
not intended to be brushed aside and overlooked or ignored.
Meticulous compliance is the only way to respond to directions        H.
    624       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A of this Court. In the light of the direction in Lata Singh's case
  (supra), it is the duty of all persons in the administration/police
  authorities throughout the country that if any boy or girl who is
  major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, their
  marital life should not be disturbed or harassed and if anyone
B gives such threat or commits acts of violence or instigates, it
  is the responsibility of the officers concerned to take stern
  action against such persons as provided by law.

       18. In the light of the directions of this Court, it is
  unfortunate and of the fact that both Rizwanur Rahman and
c Priyanka Todi married on their own will, who were majors, and
  the marriage was duly registered under the notified authority,
  the police officials have no role in their conjugal affairs and the
  law enforcing authorities have no right to interfere with their
  married life and, in fact, they are duty bound to prevent others
D who interfere in their married life.

        19. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the
  officers of the Police Department were not justified in interfering
  with the married- life of Rizwanur Rahman and Priyanka Todi.
E The learned single Judge, by giving adequate reasons, directed
  the investigation by the CBI which we concur.

    The reasonings of the Division Bench

       20. The Division Bench, after analyzing the case has
F correctly determined the following question for consideration:

          The question involved in the writ application was' whether
          it had been established from the materials on record that
          there was genuine apprehension in the mind of the writ
G         petitioners that there might not be fair investigation at the
          instance of the CID in respect of the unnatural death of
          Rizwanur Rahman because of the alleged involvement of
          the high police officials of the. Kolkata Police in the post
          marital dispute between Todis and the deceased on the
H
 ASHOK KUMAR TOOi v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 625
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     one hand and with his wife on the other, justifying                A
     investigation by the CBI.

       21. While answering those issues, the Division Bench of
 the High Court committed several infirmities which we point out
 hereunder. With regard to the interim order dated .16.10.2007          B
 passed by the learned single Judge appointing the CBI to
 investigate and report, the Division Bench has observed that
 the learned single Judge has not injuncted or restrained the
 State CID from proceeding with the investigation in accordance
 with the Code. The Division Bench has also commented that
 in the absence of any direction by the learned single Judge for        C
 handing over the papers relating to the investigation done so
 far by the CID to the CBI, the CID ought to have completed the
 investigation on its own. We are unable to accept this
 conclusion. When the learned single Judge on satisfying himself
 based on the materials, particularly, the conduct of the State         D
  Police and the apprehension of the mother and brother of the
 deceased about getting fair justice at the hands of the State
  CID directed investigation by the CBI, there cannot be any
  parallel investigation by the State CID. In the same way, we are
  unable to accept the conclusion of the Division Bench that the        E
  learned single Judge simply appointed the CBI as His
  Lordships "Special Officer" to investigate into the cause of
  unnatural death of the deceased and to submit a report in a
  sealed cover. The said finding of the High Court is not borne
  out of the records of the case including the order dated              F
  16.10.2007 passed by the learned single Judge. Neither the
  Code authorizes the appointment of CBI officers as "Special
  Officer'' nor the prayers made in the writ petition prayed for
  appointment of the CBI to act as "Special Officer" of the Court.
  As a matter of fact, the order dated 16.10.2007 of the learned        G
  single Judge does not mention that the CBI was being
  appointed as "Special Officer'' of the Court. In the interim order,
  the learned single Judge decided the question whether
  investigation by the CID was just, fair and proper or whether
·such investigation should be conducted by the CBI. Merely              H
    626      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011) 3 S.C.R.


A   because no injunction was passed against the CID from
    continuing with the investigation in the matter or no order was
    passed directing the CID to handover all the papers relating to
    investigation conducted by them to the CBI, does not mean that
    CID was free to continue with their investigation. On the other
B   hand, the order dated 16.10.2007 makes it clear that the
    learned single Judge was prima facie satisfied that the case
    in question necessitated investigation by the CBI. Thus, the
    finding of the Division Bench that the learned single Judge
    appointed CBI as its "Special Officer" is patently against all
c   canons of justice, equity and fair play in action.

        22. The Division Bench of the High Court also committed
  an error in holding the order appointing CBI to investigate for
  the purpose of submitting report to the learned single Judge and
  not to investigate for the alleged offence in accordance with law
D in place of State CID and hence conclusion of such
  investigation by the CBI cannot form the basis of charge-sheet
  in the criminal trial. The Division Bench has also not considered
  the judgment dated 14.08.2008 passed by the learned single
  Judge in terms whereof, the Court permitted the CBI to proceed
E in accordance with law for filing charge sheet before the
  competent Court under Section 173(2) of the Code and was
  also granted liberty to conduct further investigation before it
  actually files the charge sheet at any point it may consider
   necessary in the interest of justice. Neither the learned single
F Judge directed the CBI to submit the report as charge sheet,
  as has been held erroneously by the learned Division Bench
   nor the CBI was stopped from conducting further investigation
   in the matter before it actually filed the charge sheet at any point
   it may consider necessary in the interest of justice. It is evident
G that CBI at interim order stage was directed to investigate the
   case and at the final order stage was directed to submit charge
   sheet after making further investigation.

        23. Section 2(h) of the Code defines investigation which
    reads as under:
H
 ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 627
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    "(h) "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this A
    Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police
    officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is
    authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf'

Under the scheme of the Code, investigation commences with
                                                                     8
lodgment of information relating to the commission of an
offence. If it is a cognizable offence, the officer-in-charge of the
police station, to whom the information is supplied orally has a
statutory duty to reduce it to writing and get the signature of the
informant. He shall enter the substance of the information,
whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, in C
a book prescribed by the State in that behalf. The officer-in-
charge has no escape from doing so if the offence mentioned
therein is a cognizable offence and whether or not such offence
was committed within the limits of that police station. But when
the offence is non-cognizable, the officer-in~charge of the police D
station has no obligation to record it if the offence was not
committed within the limits of his police station. Investigation
thereafter would commence and the investigating officer has to
go step by step. The Code contemplates the following steps to
be carried out during such investigation:                            E

     (1) Proceeding to the spot; (2) ascertainment of the facts
     and circumstances of the case; (3) discovery and arrest
     of the suspected offender; (4) collection of evidence
     relating to the commission of the offence which may consist F
     of- (a) the examination of various persons (including the
     accused) and the reduction of their statements into writing,
     if the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places or seizure
     of things considered necessary for the investigation and
     to be produced at the trial; and (5) formation of the opinion G
     as to whether on the material collected there is a case to
     place the accused before a Magistrate for trial and, if so,
     to take necessary steps for the same by the filing of a
     charge-sheet under Section 173. [Vide H.N. Rishbud &
     Anr. v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196, State of M.P. v.
                                                                    H
    628      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A         Mubarak Ali, AIR 1959 SC 707 and Navinchandra N.
          Majithia vs. State of Meghalaya and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC
          323)]

         24. When the final report is laid after conclusion of the
B   investigation, the Court has the power to consider the same and
    issue notice to the complainant to be heard in case the
    conclusions in the final report are not in concurrence with the
    allegations made by them. Though the investigation was
    conducted by the CBI, the provisions under Chapter XII of the
    Code would apply to such investigation. The police referred to
C   in the Chapter, for the purpose of investigation, would apply to
    the officer/officers of the Delhi Police Establishment Act. On
    completion of the investigation, the report has to be filed by the
    CBI in the manner provided in Section 173(2) of the Code.
    [Vide Hemant Dhasmana vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
D   and Another, (2001) 7 SCC 536]

        25. In view of the same, the Division Bench failed to
  appreciate the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the learned
  single Judge directing the CBI to investigate into cause of
E unnatural death of Rizwanur Rehman. We have already noted
  that as per Section 2(h) of the Code investigation includes all
  the proceedings under this Code for collection of evidence
  conducted by a police officer. The direction to conduct
  investigation requires registration of an FIR preceding
F investigation and, therefore had to be treated as casting an
  obligation on the CBI to first register an FIR and thereafter
  proceed to find out the cause of death, whether suicidal or
  homicidal. In order to find out whether the death of Rizwanur --
  Rahman was suicidal or homicidal, investigation could have
G been done only after registration of an FIR. Therefore, CBI was
  justified in recording FIR on 19.10.2007 in terms of the order
  dated 16.10.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge.

        26. The inquiry/investigation under Section 174 read with
    Section 175 of the Code may continue till the outcome of the
H
 ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 629
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
cause of the death. Depending upon the cause of death, police A
has to either close the matter or register an FIR. In the case on
hand, as per the post mortem report dated 22.09.2007, the
cause of death of Rizwanur Rahman was due to the effect of
ten injuries on the body and which were anti mortem in nature.
In such circumstances, the proceedings under Section 174 of B
the Code were not permissible beyond 22.09.2007 and
registration of an FIR was natural outcome to ascertain whether
the death was homicidal or suicidal. Accordingly, in terms of
order dated 16.10.2007, CBI registered an FIR on 19.10.2007
under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 506 IPC. Th~         c
contrary observations made about the orders of the learned
single Judge cannot be sustained. Inasmuch as the direction
of the learned single Judge is in accordance with law and the
CBI investigated the case in terms of the said order and
submitted report based on which it was permitted to file a report D
before an appropriate Court and also adduced liberty to
reinvestigate the issue if not arise, the Division Bench has erred
in directing the CBI to start investigation afresh in accordance
with law by treating the complaint of Rukbanur Rahman-brother
of the deceased dated 21.09.2007 as FIR and to register a
case of murder. ~s rightly pointed out by the learned Solicitor E
General, all this had already been done by CBI three years
back. There is no need to register another FIR when in respect
of the same offence an FIR had already been registered. Once
an FIR had been registered lawfully and investigation had been
conducted leading to filing of charge sheet before the F
competent court of law for the trial of accused person.s,
absolutely, there was no justifiable reason for the Division
Bench to direct re-registration of the same by lodging another
FIR after three years and proceed with the investigation which
had already been concluded by the CBI.                             G

      27. The Division Bench of the High Court has failed to note
that the fresh investigation into !the same allegation would be a
futile exercise and no purpose would be served by investigating
the case afresh, more particularly, when there is no adverse        H
      630           SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2011) 3 S.C.R.


 A comment on the investigation carried out by the CBI. The de
   novo investigation by lodging another FIR would result in delay
   of justice since the Division Bench has ordered to conduct the
   same investigation under the same sections started three years
   back by the same agency, namely, the CBI. For all these
 B reasons, we are unable to sustain the reasonings of the Division
   Bench for a fresh investigation by the CBI.

        28. Coming to the directions passed by the High Court
   about the conduct of the officers and taking action against them
   on the departmental side, we clarify that the concerned
 C department is free to take appropriate action in accordance with
   the statute/rules/various orders applicable to them, after
   affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. It should not be
   taken as neither the High Court nor this Court concluded the
   issue about the allegations made against them. However, we
 D agree with the observation of the learned single Judge in
   respect of the conduct of the officers in interfering with the
   conjugal affairs of the couple even without any formal complaint
   against any one of them.

~ E         29. In the light of the above discussion, we conclude:

             (i)     The learned single Judge of the High Court is fully
                     justified in passing interim order on 16.10.2007
                     appointing the CBI to investigate into the unnatural
                     death of Rizwanur Rahman and submit a report;
 F
             (ii)    The learned single Judge's final order dated .
                     14.08.2008 accepting the report and granting
                     opportunity to the CBI to proceed in accordance
                     with law for filing charge sheet before the
 G                   Competent Court under Section 173(2) of the Code
                     is accepted.

             (iii)   All the reasonings recorded by the Division Bench
                     of the High Court in the order dated 18.05.2010 are
                     unacceptable and hereby set aside;
 H
 ASHOK KUMAR TODI v. KISHWAR JAHAN & ORS. 631
            [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
       (iv)   Pursuant to the orders of the learned single Judge, A
              after investigation, CBI has filed charge sheet on
              20.09.2008 under Section 120-B read with
              Sections 306 and 506 IPC. In view of the same and
              as per the statement of Mr. Lalit, Ashok Kumar Todi
              was in custody for 45 days and on the orders of this B
              Court, he was ordered to be released and also of
              the fact that all other accused were enlarged, no
              further custody is required. However, we make it
              clear that CBI is free to move an application before
              the court concerned for appropriate direction, if their c
              presence is required;

        (v)   Any action against the officers of the State Police
              Department, as suggested by the learned single
              Judge, shall be in accordance with law and service
              conditions applicable to them and after affording D
              opportunity to them.
       30. All the appeals are disposed of on the above terms.

N.J.                                       Appeals disposed of.      E