M.C. ABRAHAM AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                    M.C. ABRAHAM AND ANR.                                            A
                              v.
                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                           DECEMBER 20, 2002

             [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.)                                  B


      Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226:

       Writ Jurisdiction ofHigh Court-Matter under investigation-Directions
 issued by the High Court to the State/investigating Officer to arrest the accused   C
 and show no laxity in the investigation-Held, such directions amounted to
-unjustified interference in the investigation of the case-Penal Code, I860;
 Sections 406 and 409134.
      Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-&ction 41:
                                                                                     D
      Anticipatory bail-Rejection-Direction by High Court to arrest
accused-Correctness of-Held, Investigating officer may or may not arrest
accused person depending on the facts and circumstances of the case-It is
wrong to assume that on rejection of anticipatory bail application State must
arrest accused person.
                                                                                     E
       Maharashtra Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Employees Association
& Others filed a Writ Petition seeking direction against the State to
expedite investigation lodged by the Provident Fund Commissioner against
several Directors of the Company. High Court directed the State to arrest
and prosecute the accused and held that Investigating Officer was not
justified in not proceeding against the accused on the ground that no funds          F
have been misappropriated by accused. In the meanwhile, on appeal filed
by the aggrieved appellants, this Court stayed High Court's order of arrest
of accused. High Court further directed the State not to show any laxity
in the investigation. Hence the present appeals.

      It was contended for the appellants that High Court could not direct           G
the investigating Agency or the State to arrest accused and submit
investigation report while matter was under investigation.

      Allowing the appeals, the Court

      HELD: I.I. Arrest of an accused is a part of the investigation and is          H
                                       677
    678                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A within the discretion of the investigating officer. Section 41 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure gives discretion to the police officer who may,
    without an order from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, arrest
    any person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is open to him
    in the course of investigation, to arrest any person who has been concerned
B   with any cognizable offence or against whom reasonable complaint has
    been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable
    suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. He is not expected to act
    in a mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon as
    the report is lodged. In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the
    investigating officer may make up his mind as to the necessity to arrest
C   the accused person. At that stage the Court has no role to play.
                                                                   1685-B, c, DI

          State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors., [1980) I SCC 554,
    relied on.

D         S.M Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, 119701 3 SCR 946, referred to.

           1.2. In the instant case, the appellants had not been arrested. The
    result of the investigation showed that no amount had been defalcated.
    The investigating officer did not consider it necessary, having regard to
    all the facts and circumstances of the case, to arrest the accused. In such
E   a case there was no justification for the High Court to direct the State to
    arrest the appellants against whom the first information report was lodged,
    as it amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case.
    The mere fact that the anticipatory bail applications of some of the
    appellants had been rejected is no ground for directing their immediate
    arrest. 1685-F; G)
F
          1.3. The High Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that since
    petitions for anticipatory bail had been rejected, there was no option open
    for the State but to arrest those persons. A person whose petition for grant
    of anticipatory bail has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the
    investigating officer depending upon the facts and circumstances of the
G   case, nature of the offence, the background of the accused, the facts
    disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant considerations.
                                                                      1686-B-CI

          1.4. It is not necessary to comment on the tentative view of the
H investigating agency. It is the statutory duty of the investigating agency
              M.C. ABRAHAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                         679

to fully investigate the matter and then submit a report to the concerned          A
Magistrate. The Magistrate will thereafter proceed to pass appropriate
order in accordance with law. It was not appropriate for the High Court
in these circumstances to issue a direction that the case should not only
be investigated, but a charge sheet must be submitted. High Court
exceeded its jurisdiction in making such direction which deserves to be            B
set aside. However, the investigating agency must promptly take all
necessary steps, conclude the investigation and submit its report to the
concerned Magistrate. It is OP!!" to the investigating agency to submit such
report as it considers appropriate, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and result of the investigation. After such a final
report is submitted by the investigating agency, the concerned Magistrate          C
will proceed to deal with the matter further in accordance with law without
being influenced by any observation made by the High Court in the
impugned orders. [687-G, H; 688-A-C, D, El

      1.5. The principle is well settled tha~ it is for the investigating agency
to submit a report to the Magistrate after full and complete investigation.        D
The investigating agency may submit a report finding the allegations
substantiated. It is also open to the investigating agency to submit a report
finding no material to support the allegations made in the first information
report. It is open to the Magistrate concerned to accept the report or to
order further enquiry. But the Magistrate cannot direct the investigating          E
agency to submit a report that is in accord with his views. (687-E, Fl

      Abhinandan Jha and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR (1968) SC 117, relied
on.

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1346-134 7 of 2002.                                                                F
     From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2002. of the Bombay High
Court in Crl. W.P. No. 380 of 2001.
                                    WITH
      Crl. A. Nos. 1348-49/2002.                                                   G
      1350-1351/2002 and Cr!. A.No. 1352 of 2002.

      R.F. Nariman, M.N. Upadhyay, Ms. Meenakshi Dogra and Jay Savla,
for the Appe II ants.

      R.B. Masodkar, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, V.R. Mudra, Jai                 H
    680                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A Mangalwadi, Niraj Shrma and B.V. Bairam Das, for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          B.P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted in all matters.

B          These appeals arise out of three orders passed by the High Court of
    Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 38012001, a writ
    petition filed in public interest, dated 10th, I Ith and 16th January, 2002. The
    aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the Maharashtra Antibiotics &
    Pharmaceuticals Employees Association and others in which a grievance has
    been made that though the Provident Fund Commissioner ·has lodged a
C · complaint against several Directors of the Maharashtra Antibiotics &
    Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'MAPL'), the investigation
                                                 0


    has made no progress on account of the fact that the Directors are government
    servants and enjoy consid~rable influence. In the aforesaid writ petition the
    impugned orders have been passed on different dates which are the subject
D matter of challenge before this Court. Criminal Appeals arising out ·of S.L.P.
    (Crl.) Nos. 301-302 of 21102; Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P.. (Crl.)
    Nos. 310-31 ! of 2002 and Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.
    231-232 of 2002 are directed against the orders of the Court dated I0th
    January, 2002 and.11th January, 2002. Shri A.K. Dhote, appellant in Criminal
    Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 301-302 of 2002 is the Managing
E Director of MAPL. The appellants in Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P.
    (Crl.) Nos.310-311 of 2002, Shri J.F. Salve and Sh. Vijay Khardekar are the
    Directors on the Board of MAPL nominated by the State Industrial and
    Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
    SICOM). Similarly the appellants in Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P.
F (Crl.) Nos.231-232 of 7002, Sh. M.C. Abraham and Sh. J.K. Dattagupta are
    part time Directors of MAPL having been appointed as part time Directors
    on the Board of Management by the President of India.

        Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.868 of 2002 is directed
  against the order of the High Court dated 16th January, 2002 and the appellants
G therein are Shri J.F. Salve and Sh. Vijay Khardekar, who are nominees of
  SICOM on the Board of MAPL.

         MAPL is a joint venture of the Government of India and the State of
  Maharashtra and it is not in dispute that it has been declared to be a sick
  industry by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reeonstruction (hereinafter
H referred to as the BIFR) on 14th January, 1997. It appears that a complaint
     M.C. ABRAHAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [B.P. SINGH, J.] 681

has been lodged by the Provident Fund Commissioner against the Directors           A
of MAPL alleging offences under sections 406 and 409/34 IPC.

       It appears that some of the accused persons had moved the High Court
for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure being Criminal Application Nos. 940, 975 and 976 of2001. Those
petitions were rejected by the High Court by its order dated 7th September,        B
200 I. The orders rejecting those petitions have not been appealed against.

       On 10th January, 2002 the High Court passed the first impugned order
observing that it was shocking that the writ petitioners had to approach the
High Court seeking directions against the State to act on the complaint lodged     C
by the Provident Commissioner against the Directors of MAPL. Despite the
fact that their applications for grant of anticipatory bail had been rejected by
the High Court, by a reasoned order, they had not been arrested. The High
Court, therefore, felt that in the circumstances, the only course open to the
respondent-State was to cause their arrest and prosecute them. The High
Court thereafter passed the following order :-                                     D
            "We therefore, direct the respondent-State to cause arrest of those
        accused and produce them before the Court on or before 14.1.2002.
        On their failure to do so we will be constrained to ·summon the
                              I
        Commissioner of Police, Nagpur, Pune and Mumbai to appear before
        this Court in person and explitin that as to why they are not able to      E
        cause arrest of these persons.

            Merely because accused are government servants/officials they
        do not enjoy any immunity from arrest if they have committed an
        offence. It is expected of the State to be diligent in prosecuting such
        offenders without discrimination.                                          F
            The order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Home
        Department, Government of Maharashtra and also to tl:;; CommissiOner
        of Police of three cities who will be solely responsible for failure to
        comply with the orders of this Court. Learned A.P.P. is directed to
        communicate the orders by Fax, Wireless message in addition to             G
        other mode of service and even inform them on telephone S.O.
        16.1.2002. Authenticated copy be furnished to A.P.P.".

        This is the first order challenged by the appellants before us.

      It appears that on the next date i.e. I Ith January, 2002 an application H
    682                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.'
A filed on behalf of respondents I & 2 in the writ petition for modification of
    the order dated I0th January, 2002 came up for hearing before the Court in
    which certain additional facts were sought to be brought to the notice of the
    Court, namely ~ that the complainant himself had written to the investigating
    officer by his letter dated Ist August, 200 I that Shri M.C. Abraham, Chairman
    of MAPL and part time Director Shri J.K. Dattagupta were appointed by the
B   Government of India and as such they were not concerned with day to day
    working of the establishment and therefore the complaint should be restricted
    to other accused persons excluding these two. The High Court was surprised
    as to how such a letter could be issued to the investigating officer, because
    the question as to whether they were concerned with day to day affairs of the
C   company was a matter which had to be considered by the Court taking
    cognizance of the offence. Some other submissions were also urged on the
    basis of Section 41-A of the State. Financial Corporation Act but the same
    were also rejected. Lastly, it was urged before the High Court that the
    investigating officer had taken an opinion from the Assistant Director and
    Public Prosecutor, Nagpur who was of the view that the matter deserved to
D   be treated as 'C' summary as no funds have been found to be misappropriated.
    The High Court observed that this could not be the reason for not proceeding
    further in the matter particularly in view of the observations made by the
    Court in the order dated 7th September, 200 I rejecting the applications for
    grant of anticipatory bail. The application for modification was accordingly
E   dismissed.

           The third order was passed on 16th January, 2002. It appears that the
    order directing arrest of tbe appellants herein was appealed against before
    this Court and this Court by order dated 14th January, 2002 passed an interim
    order staying the directions of the High Court to arrest the appellants. The
F   High Court noticed the order passed by this Court. It directed the respondent/
    State to take necessary steps in the matter subje~t to interim order passed by
    the Supreme Court. In this connection it was observed :-
                 "Our anxiety is to see that the State expeditiously conclude the
             investigation in the case and file Chargesheet. We may again remind
G            the State of the order· passed by this Court while rejecting the pre-
           . arrest bail application on 7.9.2001 and should not show any laxity in
             the investigation".
         Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that the orders dated
  I 0th January, 2002 and I Ith January, 2002 result in unjustifiell interference
H with the investigation of the case, and having regard to the well defined para-
     M.C. ABRAHAM v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA [B.P. SINGH, J.] 683

meters of judicial interference in such matters, the directions made by the A
High Court deserve to be quashed. He submitted that the High Court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot direct the investigating officer or the
State to arrest the accused in a case which is still at the stage of investigation,
nor can it direct the investigating agency to submit a report before the
Magistrate as directed. by the High Court. We find considerable force in the B
submission urged on behalf of the appellants. The observations of the Supreme
Court in State of Bihar and another Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and others : (1980)
I SCC 554 in this regard deserve notice. In that case, on the basis of the first
information report, the case was investigated and a final report was submitted
exonerating the accused. The matter had engaged the attention of the
Government and even while the matter was under consideration of the C
Government, the final report was submitted. The investigating officer who
had taken over from the earlier investigating officer moved the Cpurt with a
prayer that the final report already filed, may not be acted upon and that the
report of the police, after completion of further investigation, which had been
directed by the government in the case, be awaited. The Chief Judicial
magistrate passed an order whereby he decided to await the report of further D
investigation. This order was challenged before the High Court and a Full
Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and gave various directions
to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate how to dispose of the
case. It further held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error
 in postponing the consideration of the final report already submitted.             E
       The contention before this Court was that the High Court was in error
in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the stage
when the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who had jurisdiction to entertain
and try the case, had not passed upon the issues before him, by taking upon
itself the appreciation of evidence involving facts about which there was an F
acrimonious dispute between the parties and giving a clean bill to the suspects
against whom the first information report was filed. In this connection this
court relied upon the observations of the Privy Council in King Emperor v.
Khwaja Nazir Ahmad: 1944 LR 71 IA 203, which reads thus:-

            "ln India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part G
        of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable
        crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities
        and it would, as their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it
        should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an
        exercise of the inher.ent jurisdiction of the Court. The functions of the H
    684                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A           judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the
            combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and
            order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own
            function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene
            in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal
            Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In
B           such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin
            when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then".

          Reference was also made to the observations of this Court in S.M
    Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari : (1970) 3 SCR 946, wherein this Court
C observed:
                 "It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure
            gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where
            they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in
            appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by
D           invoking the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
            Constitution under which, if the High Court c_ould be convinced that
            the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer
            mala fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus
            restraining the police officer from misusing his legal power".

E          This Court held in the case of J.A.C. Saldanha (supra) that there is a
    clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection
    and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively
    reserved by the executive through the police department, the superintendence
    over which vests in the State Government. It is the bounden duty of the
    executive to investigate, if an offence i~ alleged, and bring the offender to
F   book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been conimitted, it is
    its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that
    is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the Court requesting
    the Court to take congnizance o(the offence under section 190 of the Code
    of Criminal Procedure, its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the
G   offence being taken by the Court, the police function of investigation comes
    to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), then commences
    the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence
    has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with
    the crime. In the circumstances°, the judgment and order of the High Court
    was set aside by this Court.
H
         M.C. ABRAHAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [B.P. SINGH. J.J 685

           Tested in the light of the principles aforesaid, the impugned orders A
    dated 10th January, 2002 and 11th January, 2002 must be held to be orders
    passed by over-stepping the para-meters of judicial interference in such matters.
    In the first place, arrest of an accused is a part of the investigation and is
    within the discretion of the investigating officer. Section 41 of the Code of
    Criminal Procedure provides for arrest by a police officer without an order
    from a Magistrate and without a warrant. The section gives discretion to the B
    police officer who may, without an order from a Magistrate and even without
    a warrant, arrest any person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is
    open to him, in the course of investigation, to arrest any person who has been
    concerned with any cognizable offence or against whom reasonable complaint
    has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable C
    suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Obviously, he is not expected
    to act in a mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon
    as the report is lodged. In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the
    investigati11g officer may make up his mind as to whether it is necessary to
    arrest the accused person. At that stage the Court has no role to play. Since
    the power is discretionary, a police officer is not always bound to arrest an D
    accused even ifthe allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable
    offence. Since an arrest is in the nature of an encroachment on the liberty of
    the subject and does affect the reputation and status of the citizen, the power
    has to be cautiously exercised. It depends inter alia upon the nature of the
    offence alleged and the type of persons who are accused of having committed E
    the cognizable offence. Obviously, the power has to be exercised with caution
    and circumspection.

           In the instant case the appellants had not been arrested. It appears that
    the result of the investigation showed that no amount had been defalcated.
    We are here not concerned with the correctness of the conclusion that the F
    investigating officer may have reached. What is, however, significant is that
    the investigating officer did not consider it necessary, having regard to all the
    facts and circumstances of the case, to arrest the accused. In such a case there
    was no justification for the High Court to direct the State to arrest the appellants
    against whom the first information report was lodged, as it amounted to
    unjustified interference in the investigation of the case. The mere fact that the G
    bail applicatlons of some of the appellants had been rejected is no ground for
    directing their immediate arrest. In the very nature of things, a person may
    move the Court on mere apprehension that he may be arrested. The Court
    may or may not grant anticipatory bail depending upon the facts and
J   circumstances of the case and the material placed before the Court. There H
    686                     SlffREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A may, however, be cases where the application for grant of anticipatory bail
    may be rejected and ultimately, after investigation, the said person may not
    be put up for trial as no material is disclosed against him in. the course of
    investigation. The High Court proceeded on the assumption that since petitions
    for anticipatory bail had been rejected, there was no option open for the State
    but to arrest those persons. This assumption, to our mind, is erroneous. A
B   person whose petition for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected may or
    may not be arrested by the investigating officer depending upon the facts and
    circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, the background of the accused,
    the facts disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant
    considerations.
c          We have, therefore, no doubt that the order dated 10th January, 2002,
    in so far as it directs the arrest of the appellants, must be set aside. So far as
    the order dated I Ith January, 2002 is concerned, it gives an impression that
    the High Court has held that it was not open to the investigating officer, in
    view of the order passed by the High Court dated 7th September, 2001
D   rejecting the anticipatory bail petitions of some of the appellants, to treat the
    case as 'C' summary as it has been found that no funds had been
    misappropriated. By the impugned order dated 16th January, 2002 the High
    Court has in fact shown its anxiety to see that the "State expeditiously conclude
    the investigation in the case and file charge-sheet". We are afraid, such a
E   direction cannot be sustained in view of the settled principle of law on the
    subject. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities but we may only
    refer to Abhinandan Jha and others Vs. Dinesh Mishra : AIR 1968 SC 117,
    where this Court observed thus:-

                 "Then the question is, what is the position, when the Magistrate
            is dealing with a report·submitted by the police, under Section 173,
F
            that no case is made out for sending up an accused for trial, which
            report, as we have already indicated, is called, in the area in question,
            as a 'final report'? Even in those cases, if the Magistrate agrees with
            the said report, he may accept the final report and close the
            proceedings. But there may be instances when the Magistrate may
G           take the view, on a consideration of the final report, that the opinion
            formed by the police is not based on a full and complete investigation,
             in w~ich case, in our opinion, the Magistrate will have ample
            jurisdiction to give directions to the police, under S. 156(3 ), to make
             a further investigation. That is, if the Magistrate feels, after considering
             the final report, that the investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete,
H
     M.C. ABRAHAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [B.P. SINGH, J.] 687

        or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the A
        Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police
        to make further investigation, under Section 156(3). The police, after
        such further investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit
        a final report, depending upon the further investigation made bythem.
        If ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out B
        in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of
        the offence, under section 190( I) (b ), notwithstanding the contrary
        opinion of the police, expressed in the final report ........... The functions
        of the Magistracy and the police, are entirely different, and though,
        in the circumstances mentioned earlier, the Magistrate may or may
        not accept the report, and take suitable action, according to law, he C
        cannot certainly infringe (sic impinge?) upon the jurisdiction of the
        police, by compelling them to change their opinion, so as to accord
        with his view.

            Therefore, to conclude, there is no power, expressly or impliedly
        conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the police to      D
        submit a charge-sheet, when they have- sent a report under section
        169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an
        accused for trial".

      The principle, therefore, is well settled that it is for the investigating
agency to submit a report to the Magistrate after full and complete                 E
investigation. The investigating agency may submit a report finding the
allegations substantiated. It is also open to the investigating agency to submit
a report finding no material to support the allegations made in the first
information report. It is open to the Magistrate concerned to accept the report
or to order further enquiry. But what is clear is that the Magistrate cannot        F
direct the investigating agency to submit a report that is in accord with his
views. Even in a case where a report is submitted by the investigating agency
finding that no case is made out for prosecution, it is open to the Magistrate
to dis-agree with the report and to take cognizance; but what he cannot do
is to direct the investigating agency to submit a report to the effect that the
allegations have been supported by the material collected during the course        G
of investigation.

       In the instant case the investigation is in progress. It is not necessary
for tis to comment on the tentative view of the investigating agency. It is the
statutory duty of the investigating agency to fully investigate the matter and
then submit a report to the concerned Magistrate. The Magistrate will thereafter   H
    688                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It was not appropriate
  for the High Court in these circumstances to issue a direction that the case
  should not only be investigated, but a charge sheet must be submitted. In our
  view the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making this direction which
  deserves to be set aside. While it is open to the High Court, in appropriate
B cases, to give directions for prompt investigation etc., the High Court cannot
  direct the investigating agency to submit a report that is in accord with its
  views as that would amount to unwarranted interference with the investigation
  of the case by inhibiting the exercise of statutory power by the investigating
  agency.

c in the Inorder
             these circumstances, therefore, we set aside the direction contained
                 of the High Court dated 10th January, 2002 directing the arrest
    of the appellants. We also set aside the direction made by the High Court
    directing the investigating agency to submit a charge-sheet. However, the
    investigating agency must promptly take all' necessary steps, conclude the
    investigation and submit its teport to the concerned Magistrate. It is open to
D   the investigating agency to submit such report as it considers appropriate,
    having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and resu It of the
    investigation. After such a final report is submitted by the investigating agency,
    the concerned Magistrate will proceed to deal with the matter further in
    accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made by
E   the High Court in the impugned orders.

          The appeals are allowed in the above terms

    S.K.S.                                                         Appeals allowed.