Holding

The High Court may monitor and give appropriate directions to investigating agencies in extraordinary circumstances where the investigation is delayed, ineffective, or influenced, without violating constitutional limits.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered appeals by Babubhai Jamnadas Patel challenging the Gujarat High Court's orders directing the police to file progress reports and monitor the investigation of FIR No.187/2008 relating to alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467 and 120‑B IPC. The issue was whether a High Court may intervene and supervise an ongoing criminal investigation that had already been commenced by the investigating agency. The Court held that while investigation is ordinarily the domain of the police, the High Court may monitor and issue directions where the investigation is tardy, influenced, or not being carried out properly, to prevent miscarriage of justice. It observed that such supervisory powers are exercised under Articles 226, 227 and 142 of the Constitution and are consistent with earlier precedents. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's orders directing the investigating authorities to proceed as indicated.

Issues considered

Can a High Court monitor and direct the conduct of a criminal investigation that has already been commenced by the investigating agency?
Do such directions amount to an impermissible interference with the statutory powers of the police under the Criminal Procedure Code?

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 162, s. 169, s. 172, s. 173, s. 190
Constitution of Indias. 142, s. 226, s. 227

Subjects

judicial reviewinvestigation monitoringhigh court powersarticle 226article 227article 142Criminal Procedure Codemandamuscourt interferencepolice investigationcivil dispute

Judgment

? 1 2, ;.:.'•].' c20091 13 (AD0Lrs.c:Rc-:11ss,·:~-1ctuc: · ·:·

-~~ 1 , '.; c :-. •STATE-OF1-GUJARAT.&'·ORS. \~1 Y'*5~; 1 ir1· 1

(Criminal Appeal Nos: r..1678-79~_ of 2009)1 ~ ,. i~ 1r ··fl
L;: ~:.._, :;·· l :SEPTEMBER 2~ 200~,?.T'•;i,);) ""-l I .:.:
=l,.t:, • - .. ~ ,.. ........ : O ~ -~j t I~'~~ '""' ... :ci~ ~~~ 11....., .!l"'i• B
.
r -- ,....

, .. ,,, [ALTAMAS .KABI~. ANQ' CYRl~C J9S~P.f:!,-. ~J.t ,.·~ J
._, ! _ ~ ~ ;:JJ r° -
1 _. ~ , "/,".. 'r _I ' 1 '• J J ,.,J . ; • ., ,t l-, "• ..,..

. . . . . 1·1 ~~;. ll'· ,:;:-w, 3(:; t.,_,ni :-''dkiU o1 · oiz'rwqua !Jr:_;
._.:. _lr:i.vestigat[on::: ~n!er[e,'!!,n<?_,l/;'1'!!~ -;1By l~!J :9_.gyrts '1 ,yth~{!J
~l}vestfgf}~fqn 1,h_{J_S,; alf~~<;ly_ R.~~f1Jf!.IJ£~d; l?_Y,if'X'!s'fj~f!.tiqg
age!" CY 7 . J-lf!/d::'"JVorme/!Y,-Po'!.r:t~ ::do .JJ..O~ ,!f'Jtf![fej~ 1 wi~J:I .c
investigation - But, _it can monito_rdnvestigation where. it.is
satisfied that eitl1er the' in\Jestigation 'ls prbceedeii with or 'not
is being influenced lby interested.persons·,-:-..~On _facts,
intefference ·by the-court was warranted to prevent. miscarriage
ofjustice.. --;: -~~i-1 - :t·;:•0 r·:i:· ::;; .. :,:~ .)•.- ,r,.--i~ _·:;~rd o~· o
.,_ ~: ~-·· Sfi'l ... ~~·~I. l):-.~-lPf(l f"' 5 L .--·i~·~._."'"'f ., .. ~~\~"':fl•"'"[· ...~~-... p..t..·'.5j·~...l':"'
, , -The~ q'u'estion ,for consideration ..!..'.iil the 'present
' .~ . , ....- • - I~ • • ._,, 'J..'..i.;:
.__, - .J , .;. •' ~ •• - .• "'- .,E t.;J : ;. _1 , , • Ii!

appeals was whether the courts can .' .-·
monitor
i •.... ~
investigations in respect of offences alleged to have been
committe'd,-, whenAhe ,Jnvestigation had ·. a.I ready ,been
commenced by·the investigat{ng<agency~ c~i••:' ~; .:r; ~·-· :E
· r-r~ ~JLJc ·1 •..... 11 . Jir-~vl,. :.i . . . . r~r-1 .~~~ ~t~, ni no i1-~i;-:-:·il,,"'·:' ·::-11j~ . .:
s ri 1 ~l,~is~i!'g ~~~ apP.,~~I~,. !h~; 9~~~ ·'; ') ·; t:, 1 , -; - ~i .: f;.'
:' l' i .....,_ ' :-i ."'" - ' "\......, · ~1 ..-. T.,, ~ ..., · ~ ~ ..,. 0.. ..-.: '.
~ r-:_. 1 - ,-.S ,<1. ~ • •• ' '"f. .• i ,,,._ '":-

- HEL0:·1. Normally investigation· of·offences"is· the
t1'nction df th~··investigating agencies~and the.courts"&o .F
".lot ~rdinarilyiintertere 'with·ifhe1 s~me: 'eu't;;~f'tite s'\l1tie
time~ the High Court is vested with such 'power$, 'though
~re ir{ca'1s~iS'\vhere~'
1
thJ same
~·/"r ~ f' '·
invoked 6nty
. :· .. •'t"' . . ...,.,.('
.~ ~;
extrac:frdinafy
-~(.,... tP' r· ,. ,.._ ~- .""':- ,....,. )ll"o • ~-

facts are imrolve.d, ·necessitating such monitoring' by the
c6u~~·[P~ra··311 c1·1s9-A-ef .. · ,f' r" - •• .~,i-~: ,·;,_, :;.;·,
. _ 1-; . t·; :~r i·n: '"~ er·, - : s::ij.;:u'. !:G
.2. rIn
J
'. i, • .'
appropriate
~ j ,., ':f
cases, the courts
j 1 ... .,._
~
may". •monitor
ft"~, > •• I
an .f, ,' _,} .-, ': I ., ~ ~.· ~ ~

investigation into an offericEfwhen·it is satisfied thafeither
- -~· ..,tyr •. tJ.,d,:· ' . _..,1;_... ~'~· ~ ,.:?.r:;f; '.);,;: ~--qt,..•:...~.;""";~,-~ ,.,. . . •T:,:t.: • --..; j

the mvestlgation 1s not bemg ~roceeded with br 1s 'being
~ •. ·JHj(]' -~'·' ~\.·.lt19.(.~~.:-~ ij~j:J1 1 ·"'!:'.J~ .:f~l90 E.~V~' :~~c ~·'~"'J~~~·V~1i

1155 'H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A influenced by interested persons. The Investigating
Authorities are directed to proceed in the manner
indi<:ated by the High Court in its impugned orders.
[Paras 40 and 41] (1171-G-H; 1172-A]

3. The courts, and in particular the High Courts and
8 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 y
are duly protected. The courts have to maintain a constant
vigil against the inaction of the authorities in discharging
C ,. their duties and obligations in the interest of the citizens
for whom they exist. (Para 37] [1170-E-F]

4. Supreme Court, as also the High Courts, have had
to issue appr.opriate writs and directions lrom time to time
o. to ensure that the authorities per:formed at least such
duties as they were required to perform under the ~rious
stat-utes and· orders passed by the administration. [Para
37] ·(1170-F-G]

5. In cases where it has been brought to tho notice
E of the Courts that investigation into an offence was not
being carried on in the manner in which it should have
been carried on, directions have been given by the
courts to the investigating agencies to conduct the
investigatJon according to. certain guidelines,- as
F otherwise. the very purpose of the investigation could
become fruitless. Having regard .to the factual
circumstances in which the incident. had occurred, the
court adopted the procedure for keeping a watch over
the investigation in order to prevent a miscarriage of
G Justice. ·[Paras 34 and 35] (1169-.E'."H] ·

6. In the instant case, the High Court had to f ...,
repeatedly intervene and pass order~ to ensure that the
investigation was·· being conducted diligently. Periodical
H
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1157
GUJARAT & ORS.

~ status reports were required in that regard. In fact, the A
l
"" High Court had to direct the Additional Public Prosecutor
to ask the Investigating Officer to incorporate the details
of the action taken by him from the date of receipt of the
letter dated 5th December, 2008. There is little doubt that
only after the High Court began monitoring the progress B
of the investigation that the Investigating Authorities
began to deal with the matter with some amount of
,. "'" seriousness. [Para 37] [1170-G-H; 1171-A]

7. It is not correct to say that the High Court in the
name of investigation directed both the manner and mode
c
in which the investigation was to be conducted or the
direction in which the investigation was to proceed. It is
\
-r because of the tardy progress of the investigation that the
High Court had to step in at the instance of the
·"""- respondents herein. It was at the instance of the State of D
Gujarat, which filed Special Criminal Application, before
the High Court, that a direction was issued to the
Investigating Authorities to register the complaint by way
of F.l.R. [Para 38] [1171-B-D]
E
Kashmere Devi v. Delhi 'Administration and Anr. (1988)
Supp. SCC 482, relied on
t
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. v.
j.
Niyamavedi, represented by its member K. Nandini, Advocate
F
and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 601; M.C. Abraham and Anr. v. State
of Maharashtra and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 649; S.N. Sharma v.
Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors. (1970) 1SCC653; State of Bihar
v. Ranchi Zita Samta Party and Anr. (1996) 3 SCC 682;
Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (1998) 1
SCC 226 State of WB. and Ors. v. Nuruddin Mallick and Ors. G
(1998) 8 SCC 43; Nirmal Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab and
-- t
Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 441; Gudalure M.J. Cherian and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors. (1992) 1 sec 397; Comptroller and
Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Anr.
H
,
\
t=

.t'A ~v.IJK'S.r.Vag'annathan Eina, Ari6(1986)l2 sec! 679?referrecf to ), 1.
·1(>~·t1:>!::;Gcrr•:; :11~~~J~J~..; ;r-.nv!t!l~n L~. ~1:1~· 1-:'d"t'": ~.~1 !">()- ~ t·.!..~ ·~,--~ ··~~~ 1 :l-~
~!h.i~eb sjij 9tu·w<r!o~q~s~ 41,w,,Ret~~~.P,?§;:'w• · :.<·; ,;,:. .. t.:
aiu )(1'!)9:5f3·1 scc
1601" 11 i id. ·-·tReferrEict 1toin r:.ji; PaHF15J
tri.rH .Hitit.)b g!JW cl ~rn.uff 5 JO':\ :•:;:.Jmo-:: _·-;.J 11t~ i · .. , i} ·1-... :r~l
rs 2t::s1;(20~3h2 §C.Gd>49,rn "i--l;o)Referred:1toh t•r<~ 1Para·1f7'"·
crniH '1'97o ~1rsecPss39 " 1 :1 9 d 1Rcf~tr~a.1 t8 9 ii'~.~~v 1 ~a~~i~'22°
~u tr~uoml" !;<ff!OE rtl"W J.:frt.1m r:<•:f nJi"'' l~::n; ~., 1;• Qfn.t
(1996) 3 scc;·ss2 ·r·i· .=, .. f.YRefEfrred5toc13 ..i~::aPata :24:>.
0!11 1(~~$J~).~1 $,9C 226 tsr:: \:2.,Referred 1.to ton i:l Para 25
~ . ~
nbor"'(. b §S,.,),VS'Ng"'c'~..C"' ,.,, ,.,J riJmi b~.'.R;o~io n~~jt~q1J2''3Vlllp·('1 !).n-•/i/1
. 1 9. , 43, . eaerre.u o - . . ara 2t> .
nn1 'l~i nB:i:::iuuno=> ~~o ·~1; :.!i~·. .t non..;n11;.::av1n ot1! ":11!• _·,· 111
r?i jl (2009).r11SCC.·441·1c.i?sg1uReferred ;toi1i'<N 1i Para.:·26t,
mU jr:d! r11'>ij~r,•it?.'l'J{i; ~rl1h2~f'•ipC''Hl1{b~.:tJ Sill l0 "',2ui::.:1:ed
::di (t99t!1~f~~~f ~~,71 tr n1 ~~!,~,rr8~ ~?1w 1H1 ~~~r~;~~.1 )..
·o ·.o :>.f(1986)t2l SCC'16t91 i 'li'1·; ~::. Referred1ft0•!)ii r.:J,i·Par~fi26 1 1
1
. kc
~;v.:ilud .noi::&:>ikn~,e,. is1 ' ......·,n:J 1Hi.'.)~~q?. b:'Fi r4 !irtw ,J .;;~:s•u:)
I-
:)rl> (~p~8)1..~~':'RR·,1~C9:~~,~~:::) i~el~edj <!>!1,ri u o :) t~t,.il:f'.ct ~~Li
'
v~1 w GR11i/;·{NJ\ti'f'APPELLATElJURtS61ctior~(·:'erim1H~1App'eai 1
Nos.1678-79of2009. tw ·'. f\I"': :1.::'.t: ~"'i::'ll ;.··,,.'1 1~:.
e
!BBt:f:}om~u\°~'~ua9m)eH~' 1 t''brtf~Pdat~~~.r·5. f2'.'2o6'a-''and
23.01.2009 .of the High Court of 1GuJarMP"at~timt3:d~ba8 1 iW
~J>e£i~I ~r~rriineh~BP.~q~~i,on.cNe ..c W§? qt .?QO~. K ._ ;_; , 1c1
c\i/)~~'·~t?\ .\:-•\t1f12\,\ -~ ·,_,'.': ~;· -~ :wrtH ·c'~ ~:·.131n3c/:f\).'")"!.. ·I 1=.,--..-~.~-~"'.;,·\1~\. ..,.
..

str:,\2. \' -,~.\f, \!rt·,~ ;rH3~\i-·,Jt-.. ~'j '~~J\ .i j~~, ;JJ,~! 1; \ae2r:1 ·;-,() \j~.·-~
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1159
GUJARAT & ORS.

- ~ Padhan and Mamta Tushir for the Respondents. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and B
interim orders dated 5th December, 2008 and 23rd Jan.uary,
2009, passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special Criminal
~ "" Application No.1855 of 2008 and order dated 16th January,
2009, passed in Misc. Application No.15014 of 2008 in the
said application. The order dated 5th December, 2008, merely c
records the fact that the learned Government Ple~er and the
Additional Public Prosecutor had placed on reco a copy of
the order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the office of the Police
Commissioner intimating the Senior Police Inspector,
Sabarmati Police Station, that investigation of Karanj Police D
""' Station, F.l.R. No.254 of 2008, under Sections 420, 465, 466,
467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, had been
handed over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, "Cn
Division, Ahmedabad City. By the said order, the High Court
I
· also directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, "C"
E
Division, Ahmedabad City, to file a progress report of the
investigation undertaken in the aforesaid F.l.R. dated 24th
December, 2008. It was also indicated that in the event final
+
report was ready, the same was not to be submitted without
> prior intimation to Court.
F
3. On 23rd January, 2009, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor placed an "Action Taken Report" of even date
before the Court. In the said report, the officer concerned had
stated that the investigation was being conducted according to
the procedure followed. Based upon the said report, the Gi
Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to convey to the
....
• Officer present in the Court to incorporate the details of the
action taken by him from the date of the receipt of the letter
dated 5.12.2008 which, according to him, was received by him
on 12.12.2008. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.} S.C.R.

A also directed to place on record the steps taken by the Police ;.,
Authorities in respect of Item No.13 mentioned in the Action "
Taken Report dated 11.11.2008 filed under the signature of Shri
M.P. Joshi, Senior Police Inspector, Sabarmati Police Station,
Ahmedabad City. The matter was also adjourned till 30th
B January, 2009.
4. The said three orders are the subject matter of the
appeals under consideration. -,'
..,
5. The lands comprised in Block No.84 of Village Ambali,
c Taluka Dascroi, were owned and occupied by several persons,
including the respondents herein. According to the appellant,
the original land owners wanted to sell the lands to one Kalaji
Nathaji, who used to work as a broker in l~!"!d transactions.
Kalaji Nathaji got in touch with the appellant and informed him
D about the proposed transfer of the lands in question. On receipt
of such information, the appellant expressed his willingness to
purchase the said lands. For the purpose of changing the user
of the I and to arrange for the sale subject to such conversion,
Kalaji Nathaji prepared a Power of Attorney of the origina1 land
E owners in favour of the appellant and several persons who were
not made parties to the said Deeds.

6. Upon execution of the said Power of Attorney, a
registered Sale Deed was executed for the undivided share of +
the original land owners in favour of one Godavariben Chunnilal
F Thakkar. It may be pointed out that none of ihe shares belonging
to the respondents herein was sold by registered deeds of sale.
On the other hand, the land forming the subject matter of the
present proceeding was included along with other plots of land
in the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 212. According to the
G appellant, various farmers joined hands for the purpose of
developing the property and they also jointly applied to the
Competent Authority and on the basis thereof the lands in t ,.
question were sold to form F.P.No.63 and out of a total area of
74,764 sq.mts., 52,335 sq.mts. were allotted for the aforesaid
H
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1161
GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

purpose. A
~ " "·
7. On 18.10.2005, the Respondent No.2 and several other
persons executed a notarized Agreement for Sale and a
Supplementary Agreement in favour of the appellant's son in
respect of their undivided share in the said lands. A joint Power
B
of Attorney was also executed in favour of another son of the
appellant. Soon, thereafter, construction work was commenced
..... on the said final plot as per the sanctioned plans. According
' ~ to the appellant, more than three years after the date of
co~mencement of the construction, the respondents and
several other persons commenced various litigations against c
the appellant.

. -i
8. On 14th May, 2008, various people, including the
Respondent No.2, filed Special Civil Application No. 7572 of
2008 before the High Court in respect of civil disputes between D
the parties and the matter is still pending. Thereafter, on 2nd
June, 2008, the State of Gujarat filed Special Criminal
Application No.1061 of 2008 before the High Court for a writ
in the nature of Mandamus for a direction to the police
authorities of Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad, to register E
the complaint of the appellant under Section 154(3) of the
Criminal Procedure Code.

9. F.l.R.No.187 of 2008 having been lodged on 11th
.>-
·- August, 2008, the High Court disposed of the Special Criminal
' Application filed by the respondent on 12th August, 2008. F
Subsequently, on 25th September, 2008, the respondents filed
} Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2008 before the High
Court praying for transfer of F.l.R. No.187 of 2008, registered
with Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad, to the Central Bureau
of Investigation. The said prayer was ultimately given up. The G

-- • High Court issued notice in the said writ petition and directed
the concerned Investigating Authority to submit the Action Taken
Report with respect to the investigation carried out in respect
of F.l.R. No.187 of 2008 referred to. hereinabove.
H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 10. By virtue of various other orders passed in the > ")-
proceedings, the High Court asked for a status report of the
investigation conducted in the matter. Subsequently, the F.l.R.
in question came to be transferred from Sarkhej Police Station
to the Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmadabad. Two days
B thereafter, a prayer was made for transfer of the investigation
to the C.l.D. (Crime) which was asked to submit periodical
reports, so that the investigation could remain under the control --f
of the High Court to dispel any impression that the investigation· ~ ;

was not being conducted properly by the police authorities. On
c 14th November, 2008, the Superintendent of Pofice,
Ahmedabad (Rural), filed an affidavit, but on the prayer made
by the Public Prosecutor, the matter was adjourned to enable
him to take instructions as to whether the affidavits filed by the
Superintendent of Police (Rural) should be withdrawn or not. .i

).-
D 11. On 5th December, 2008, the High Court passed one.
of the impugned orders recording the fact that both the learned
Government Pleader and also the learned Public Prosecutor
were placing on record a copy of the order dated 1st
December, 2008, passed by the Office of the Police
E Commissioner informing the Senior Police Officer, Sabarmati
Police Station, that investigation of Karanj Police Station
C.l.R.No.254/2008 under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code had been handed over to the -+
Assistant Commissioner of Police, 'C' Division, Ahmadabad .....

F City. The High Court directed the said offict::r to file a Progress
Report of the investigation in respect of the said F.l.R. by 24th
December, 2008. The investigating authorities were also t
directed not to submit the final report, if ready, without prior JI
intimation to the Court.
G 12. On 3oth December, 2008, by an oral direction given
to the Public Prosecutor by the High Court, the investigation
, ·-
was stayed till 17.1.2009. On 16th January, 2009, the High Court
passed an order directing the Investigating Officer that all
materials/documents that were felt to be of importance in the
H
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1163
GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

case were to be collected and a report to that effect was A
/ ~ required to be filed on the next date of hearing, i.e., 23.1.2009.

13. On 23.1.2009, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted the Action Taken Report of even date. In
that report, the Investigating Officer, who was an officer of the
8
rank of Assistant Police Commissioner, 'C' Division,
Ahmedabad City, narrated the steps taken till then and what
'?- remained to be done by way of further investigation in the
matter. The Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to
convey to the Investigating Officer who was present in the Court, C
that steps should be taken to incorporate the details of the
action taken by him from the date of receipt of letter dated
5.12.2008. The learned Public Prosecutor was also directed
to place on record the steps taken by the police authorities with
:"" . a specific item in the Action Taken Report dated 11.11.2008
~ filed under the signature of Mr. M.B. Joshi, Senior Police D
Inspector, Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad City.

14. Appearing in support of the appeals, Mr. R.F. Nariman,
learned Senior Advocate, submitted that from the orders dated
5.12.2008 and 23.01.2009, passed by the Gujarat High Court, E
it would be evident that the High Court had, in fact, taken over
the investigation by directing both the manner and mode in
which the investigation was to be conducted and the course
which such investigation was required to take. It was submitted
that the impugned orders, together with the order dated F
16.1.2009, would actually indicate that the High Court wanted
to retain control over the investigation which has only served
to hamper the investigation and cause severe prejudice to the
appellant. Mr. Nariman submitted that on several occasions, the
affidavits filed by Investigating Agency were rejected with
directions to file fresh affidavits causing a good deal of pressure G
on the Investigating Agency. Reference was made to various
decisions of this Court, wherein a view had been expressed
that the High Court should not direct the Investigating Agency
to submit a report in accordance with the Court's own views.
H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Mr. Nariman submitted that it had been categorically observed
)I.
that the High Court would be exceeding its jurisdiction under ""!
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in interfering with criminal
investigation in passing such orders.

15. In this regard, Mr. Nariman referred to the decision of
B
this Court in Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
v. 'Niyamavedi' represented by its member K. Nandini,
Advocate & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC 601), where the point urged -+
by Mr. Nariman was directly in issue. Considering the Division ~ ,
Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court, in which reference
c was m~de to the material disclosed in the course of
investigation, this Court observed that having regard to the
provisions of Sections 162 and 172 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Division Bench should have refrained from
disclosing in its order, material contained in police diaries and ~

D statements, esp~cially when the investigation in the very case )
was in progress. It was also observed that the High Court
should also h(;Jve refrained from making any comments on the ,.,.......
manner in which the investigation was .being conducted by the
Central Bureau of Investigation. This Court went on to further
E observe as follows :

"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
F
demoralise the investigation. Of late, the tendency to
interfere in the investigation is on the increase and Courts
sho1,Jld be wary of its possible consequences. We say no
more."
~
G 16. Mr. Nariman submitted that the aforesaid observation
was sufficient to indicate that investigation into an alleged
offence is the responsibility of the investigating agency which
should not be interfered with by the Courts, except for
compelling reasons.
H
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1165
GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
17. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court A
in M. C. Abraham & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2003)
2 sec 649), by which several criminal appeals were disposed
of on 2oth December, 2002. One of the issues which was
considered in the said appeals was whether the Court had the
power to direct the Investigating Agency to s_ubmit a report in a
accordance with the view taken by the Court. While considering
the provisions of Sections 156(3), 169, 173 and 190 Cr.P.C.,
this Court held that while investigation is in progress, the Court
cannot direct the Investigating Agency to submit a report in
accord with the Court's own view. In the facts. and C,
circumstances of the said case, this Court observed that it was
open to the Magistrate, to whom the .report is su~mitted by the
Investigating Agency after a full and complete investigation, to
either accept the same or to order a further inquiry. As far as
the High Court is concerned, it could give directions for prompt .
0
investigation, but it could not direct the Investigating Agency to
submit a report that is in accord with its views and that would ··
amount to unwarranted interference with the investigation of the
case by inhibiting the exercise of statutory power by the
Investigating Agency. In the said case, this Court also set aside
the direction given by the High Court that not only should the E
case be investigated, but a charge-sheet must be submitted.
This Court held that 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. F

18. Mr. Nariman urged that the same question, as
enumerated hereinabove, is also involved in SLP(Crl.)No.888
of 2009.

19. Referring to the order of the High Court dated 21st G
i October, 2008, Mr. Nariman urged that the same would clearly
demonstrate the manner in which the investigation was being
interfered with by the High Court. Mr. Nariman submitted that
the procedure adopted by the High Court in dealing with the
H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A matter was not contemplated under the provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code and while setting aside the order, the
High Court should be requested to refrain from doing any act
or passing any order which would have the effect of interfering
with the investigation.
B
20. In reply to Mr. Nariman's submissions, Mr. Dushyant
Dave, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents,
submitted that the powers of the High Court under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India were sufficiently wide to
enable the High Court to direct a public authority to perform its
C duties in accordance with law when it is brought to its n,atice
that the said functions were not being discharged by the· said
public authority.

21. Mr. Dave submitted that through judicial
D pronouncements it has been well settled that ordinarily the
investigating authorities should be left to _perform their duties,
as provided for under the statute, but in the event, the said
Jr'* " ·
authority failed to perform such"duties, as they were required
to perform, the Courts could direcfiJhe investigating authorities
E to do so.

22. Mr. Dave referred to the decision of this Court in S.N.
Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors. [(1970) 1 SCC 653],
which was a decision under the old Code, wherein it was
observed that though the Code of Criminal Procedure gave to
F the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they
l

suspected that a cognizable offence had been committed, in
appropriate cases an aggrieved person could always seek a /
{'
'
remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Article

G
226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court was
convinced that the power of investigation had been exercised 1
by a police officer mala fide, the High Court could always issue
a writ of Mandamus to restrain the police officer from misusing
•
his powers. Mr. Dave submitted that this Court has uniformly
held that the Courts should not normally interfere with the
H
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1167
GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

investigative process unless it was established that the A
investigating agency had remained inactive for whatever
reason.

23. Mr. Dave, then, referred to the decision of this Court
in Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration &Anr. [(1988) Supp. 8
sec 482], wherein, since a charge-sheet had already been
submitted by the investigating agency, a direction had to be
~ given to the Magistrate to exercise his powers under Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to
make a proper and thorough investigation in an independent
'C
and objective manner and to submit an additional charge-sheet,
if any, in accordance with law. Mr. Dave pointed out that the
said decision starts with the observation that the case in hand
was an unfortunate case which tended to shake the credibility
of police investigation and undermined the faith of the common
" <f man in the Delhi Police which was supposed to protect the life D
and liberty of the citizen and to maintain law and order.

24. Yet another decision of this Court referred to by Mr.
Dave in this regard is the decision in State of Bihar & Anr. v.
Ranchi Zita Samta Party & Anr. [(1996) 3 SCC 682], where E
also directions were given by the High Court for investigation
by the Central Bureau of Investigation which' was upheld by this
Court with the further direction that the investigation by the CBI
would be under the over-all control and supervision of the Chief
Justice of the High Court. F
' 25. To further bolster his submissions, Mr. Dave also
"<
referred to the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain & Ors.
v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226], popularly known
"""I'~

as "Hawala case", in which it was held that in the absence of
appropriate legislation and even executive orders in matters of G
public interest and urgency, the Supreme Court, in exercise of
--4
-...- 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. H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 26. Reference was also made to the decisions of this
->+
Court in (1) State of W.B. & Ors. v. Nuruddin Mallick & Ors. '1
[(1998) 8 SCC 43]; (2) Nirmal Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab
& Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 441]; (3) Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 397]; and (4)
B Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New
Delhi & Anr. v. K.S. Jagannathan & Anr. [(1986) 2 SCC 679],
wherein in the circumstances of each case, this Court directed
the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct fresh investigation i
in order to do complete justice to the parties.
c 27. Mr. Dave referred to various orders passed by the
Gujarat High Court in similar matters, wherein similar orders
were passed with regard to the investigations and submissions
of the Action Taken Report, which have been annexed to the
Special Leave Petitions.
D '+
28. The State of Gujarat has chosen not to file any affidavit,
but has supported the submissions made by Mr. Dave.

29. Respondir.g tu the decisions cited by Mr. Dave, Mr. '
E Nariman submitted that while in the decisions cited by Mr. Dave
certain special circumstances existed, in which directions had
to be given by the High Cc;... t to the investigating agencies,
there is nothing extraordinary as to the facts of these cases
which necessitated the monitoring of the cases by the High
Court.
F
30. Mr. Nariman submitted that the dispute in the present
cases related to the allotment of houses in the Shivalik (Ambali)
~
Co~perative Housing Society Limited ~nd the dispute was of
~
a purely civil nature in respect of which suits were also pending
G and did not require any ·such directions for the purpose of
investigation into the complaint made.
~·

31. The area of dispute ultimately narrows down to the
question as to whether the Courts can monitor investigations
in respect of offences alleged to have been committed when
H
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1169
GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
the investigation had already been commenced by the A
investigating agency. 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 8
extraordinary facts are involved, necessitating such monitoring
by the Courts.
32. In the circumstances, we are oc:ily required to see
whether such an extraordinary fact situation exists in this case
which warranted such a course of action to be adopted by tHe c
High Court.
33. Though Mr. Nariman has in unequivocal terms denied
that such extraordinary circumstances exist in this case, which
.j. requires monitoring by the High Court, it cannot be denied that D
the progress of the investigation has been·tardy and slow. It i~
in such circumstances that the investigation had to be handed
over to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, 'C' Divisiod
Ahmedabad City, with a further direction upon the sai
Assistant Commissioner of Police to file a progress report of E
the investigation undertaken in respect of the First Information
Report dated 2~th December, 2008.
34. Having regard to the factual circumstances in which the
incident had 0~9urred, the Court adopted the procedure for;
keeping a watcti over the investigation in order to prevent a F
miscarria. ~ of jstice .
..
35. In cases where it has been brought to the notice of the.
Courts that investigation into an offence was not being carried
on in the manner in which it should have been carried on, G
directions have been given by the Courts to the investigating
agencies to conduct the investigation according to certain
guidelines, as otherwise the very purpose of the investigation
could become fruitless. The decisions cited by Mr. Nariman do
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 13 (ADDL.) $.C.R.

A not militate against the concept of the Court's power, where
necessary, to direct the authorities to conduct themselves in a
particular way. Once it is proved that there are no other
circumstances except those which were projected, the need for
such monitoring diminished. However, there is nothing in the
.B decisions cited by Mr. Nariman to even remotely suggest that
if the investigation was being stalled, for whatever reason, the
Courts were powerless to pass appropriate orders to ensure
that the investigation was proceeded with and justice was done
to the parties.
c 36. The said position has been reiterated in the various -
·decisions cited by Mr. Dave, particularly in the case of
Kashmeri Devi (supra), wherein a direction had to be given to
the Magistrate to exercise powers under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C. to direct the C.8.1. to make a proper and thorough
D investigation in an independent and objective manner and to
submit an additional charge-sheet, if any, in accordance with
law.
...
.

37. The Courts, and in particular the High Courts and the
E Supreme Court, are the sentinels of justice and have been
vested with extraordin~ry powers of judicial review and
supervision to ensure t: i~l .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
F 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 tha~
the authorities performed at least such duties .as they were
required to perform under the various statutes and orders
G 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. Periodical status reports were required in that regard.
In fact, the High Court had to direct the Additional Public
Prosecutor to ask the Investigating Officer to incorporate the
H
BABUBHAI JAMNADAS PATEL v. STATE OF 1171
GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

details of the action taken by him from the date of receipt of A
the letter dated 5th December, 2008. There is little doubt that
only after the High Court began monitoring the progress of the
investigation that the Investigating Authorities began to deal With
the matter with some amount of seriousness.
B
38. We are unable to agree with Mr. Nariman that the High
Court in the name of investigation directed both the manner and
+-- mode in which the investigation was to be conducted or the
~

direction in which the investigation was to proceed. It• is
because of the tardy progress of the investigation that the Hi?h
Court had to step in at the instance of the respondents herein.
c
It was at the instance of the State of Gujarat, which filed Special
Criminal Application No.1061 of 2008 on 2nd June, 2008,
before the High Court, that a direction was issued to tile
-* Investigating Authorities to register the complaint on 11th
August, 2008, by way of F.l.R. No.187 of 2008. D

39. The various decisions cited. by Mr. Dave endorse the
view that when required not only could the High Court or this
Court direct the Investigating Agencies to conduct the
investigation in a fair and unbiased manner, but that in exercise E
of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme
Courf could also issue directions for enforcement o,f
fundamental rights and to ensure that complete justice was
done to the parties. In fact, in Kashmere Devi's case (supra)',
this Court had directed the Magistrate to exercise powers under F
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct the C.B.I. to make a proper
and thorough investigation in an independent and objective
......,,. manner and to submit an additional charge-sheet, if
circumstances so required, in accordance with law.

40. There is, therefore, no doubt that in appropriate cases, G
..,- -4 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.

H
~

'
--\
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 41. We are, therefore, not inclined to int~rfere with the
orders of the High Court impugned in these appeals and we
direct the Investigating Authorities to proceed in the manner
indicated by the High Court in its impugned orders. The
appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. ·
B
K.K.T. Appeals dismissed.

,