STATE OF PUNJABversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

                   [2011] 11 S.C.R. 281


                    STATE OF PUNJAB                             A
                              v,
     CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.
           (SLP (Criminal) No. 792 of 2008)
                  SEPTEMBER 02, 2011
                                                                B
      [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173 (8) and 482
- Investigation into FIR - Charge-sheet filed u/s. 173 against
accused person - A/so three more F/Rs lodged - C
Subsequently, news item published in newspaper- High Court
taking suo motu notice and directing CBI to investigate into·
the case - Correctness of - Held: In a case where charge-
sheet has been filed, s. 173(8) cannot limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to pass an order u/s.482 D
for fresh investigation or re-investigation if the High Court is
satisfied that such fresh investigation or re-investigation is
necessary to secure the ends of justice - As regards
investigation by CBI, the High Court held that investigation
of the case by the investigating officer, even of the rank of E
DSP would not be fair and truthful because senior
functionaries of the State police and political leaders were .
involved, and justice would not be done if local police
investigated - Thus, direction of High Court for investigation
by CBI was justified.                                            F
     Respondent No. 3 filed an FIR against her husband
and 'SK' alleging offences u/ss. 366, 376, 406, 420, 506,
344 read with s. 34 IPC. Pursuant thereto, investigation
was carried out. Charge-sheet was submitted in the court
u/s. 173 Cr.P.C. naming few persons as accused. This            G
resulted in registration of three more FIRs· and the same
were also investigated. Thereafter;- a-news item was
published in the newspaper headlined 'Moga Sex
Scandal. The High Court took suo motu notice of the
                            281                                 H
    282      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A news item and issued notices to the State Government,
  Senior Police Officials and directed the Deputy
  Superintendent of Police to file the status report of the
  investigation of the case. Subsequently, fifth FIR was
  registered u/ss. 376, 342 and 34 IPC. Thereafter, DSP filed
B a status report as also two Municipal Councilors of the
  District filed an application alleging that many innocent
  persons were implicated in the FIR registered by
  respondent No. 3 at the instance of local influential
  political persons and police officials/officers, and
c apprehended that the investigation might not be fair and
  proper. Meanwhile, the Additional Director General of
  Police entrusted the investigation into the previous four
  FIRs to a special investigation team(SIT). The High Court
  holding that the SIT had been constituted without the
0 permission of the court directed that the investigation of
  the cases be carried out by CBI in the interest of justice
  in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the
  appellant-State filed the instant Special Leave Petition.

          Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court
E
       HELD: 1.1 Under sub-section (2) of Section 173
  Cr.P.C. a police report (charge sheet or challan) is filed
  by the police after investigation is complete. Sub-section
  (8) of Section 173 states that nothing in the Section shall
F be deemed to preclude any further investigation in
  respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2)
  has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Thus, even where
  charge sheet or challan has been filed by the police
  under sub-section (2) of Section 173, the police can
G undertake further investigation but not fresh investigation
  or re-investigation in respect of an offence under sub-
  section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. [Para 13] [294-C-
  E]
      1.2 Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., however, states that
H nothing in the Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect
   STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                 283
            INVESTIGATION & ORS.

the inherent powers of the High Court to make such             A.
orders as is necessary to give effect to any order under
the Cr.P.C. or to prevent the abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus,
the provisions of the Cr.P.C. do not limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders          B
as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
the Court or to prevent the abuse of any process of the
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
language of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.,
therefore, cannot limit or affect the inherent powers of the   c
High Court to pass an order under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. for fresh investigation or re-investigation if the
High Court is satisfied that such fresh investigation or re-
investigation is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
[Para 14) [294-F-H; 295-A]                                     D
     1.3 The investigating agency or the court subordinate
to the High Court exercising powers under Cr.P.C. have
to exercise the powers within the four corners of the
Cr.P.C. and this would mean that the investigating
agency may undertake further investigation and the             E
subordinate court may direct further investigation into the
case where charge sheet has been filed under sub-
section (2) of Section 173 of the Cr.P .C. and such further
investigation will not mean fresh investigation or re-
investigation. But these limitations in sub-section (8) of     F
Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in a case where charge sheet
has been filed will not apply to the exercise of inherent
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
for securing the ends of justic~. [Para 15) [296-B-D]
                                                            G
     1.4 On a reading of the reasons given by the High
Court, it is found that the High Court was of the view that
the investigating officer even of the rank of DSP was not
in a position to investigate the case fairly and truthfully
because senior functionaries of the State police and H
    284     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A   political leaders were to be named and political and
    administrative compulsions were making it difficult for the
    investigating team to go any further to bring home the
    truth. It further observed that not less than eight police
    officials, political leaders, advocates, municipal
B   councilors besides a number of persons belonging to
    general public had been named in the status report of the
    State local police. In the peculiar facts and circumstances
    of the case, the High Court felt that justice would not be
    done to the case if the investigation stays in the hands
c   of the local police and for these reasons directed that the
    investigation of the case be handed over to the CBI. The
    narration of the facts and circumstances of this judgment
    also support the conclusion of the High Court that
    investigation by an independent agency such as the CBI
D   was absolutely necessary in the interests of justice.
    Moreover, even though the High Court in the impugned
    order did make a mention that in case challan has been
    filed, then the petition will stand as having become
    infructuous in the order dated 12.12.2007, the High Court
    stayed further proceedings before the trial court in the
E   case arising out of the FIR registe~ed by respondent No.
    -~ till further orders. Thus, the High Court was of the view
    that even though investigation is complete in one case
    and charge sheet has been filed by the Police, it was
    necessary in the ends of justice that the CBI should carry
F   out an investigation into the case. Therefore, it is not a
    fit case in which power should be exercised under Article
    136 of the Constitution and grant leave to appeal. [Paras
    17 and 19] [298-D-H; 299-G-H]
G      Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 sec 226: 1997
                 .
  (6) Suppl.SCR 595; Mithabhai Pcishabhai Patel v. State of
                            '
  Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332: 2009 (7) SCR 1126; Ram Lal
  Narang v. ·state (Delhi Administration (1979) 2 sec 322;
  Nirmal Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2009) 1 ·
H SCC 441: 2008 (14) SCR 1049; State of West Benga/and
   STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                    285
            INVESTIGATION & ORS.
Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West       A
Bengal and Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 571 - referred to.

                     Case Law Reference:
    1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 Referred to             Para 8
                                                                  B
    2009 (7) SCR 1126            Referred to        Para 8
    (1979) 2 sec 322             Referred to        Para 10
    2008 (14) SCR 1049           Referred to        Para 16
    (201 O) 2 sec 571            Referred to        Para 18       c
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 792 of 2008.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2007 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal        D
Appeal No. 51260 of 2007.                            ·

    Aparajita Singh, Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, H.S. Sandhu,
K.K. Pandey and Mohit Paul for the Appellant.
                                                                  E
    H.P. Raval. ASG, Anoop G. Choudari, June Choudari, A.K.
Sharma, P.K. Dey, Satyakam, Anano Mukherjee, Anirudh
Sharma, Harish Parekh, Ch. Shamsuddin Khan, Subhash
Kaushik, B. Krishna Prasad, Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra,
Mrinmayee Sahu and P.V. Yogeswaran for the Respondents.
                                                                  F
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     AK. PATNAIK, J. 1. This petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution has been filed by the State of Punjab praying for
special leave to appeal against the order dated 1"1.12.2007 of    G
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous
No. 51620 of 2007 (for short "the impugned order").

    2. The facts very briefly are that on 18.04.2007 respondent
no.3 lodged FIR No. 82 at Police Station City-I, Moga against     H
 . '286     SUPREME _COURT _REPORTS             (2011) 11 S.C.R.


A Simran Kaur @ lndu and her husband Ajay Kumar alleging
  offences under Sections 366, 376, 406, 420, 506, 344 read with
  Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
  Pursuant to the FIR, Simran Kaur and Ajay Kumar were
  arrested on 19.04.2007, but Ajay Kumar managed to escape
B from the custody of police ~nd FIR No. 83, Police Station City-
  1, Moga dated 19.04.2007 under Section 224 of the IPC was
  registered against him. In course of investigation of the case,
  respondent no.3 made a statement before the police under
  Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
c 'the Cr.P.C.') on 23.04.2007 naming 14 other persons who had
  sex with her against her will and some of these persons were
  arrested by Sub-Inspector Raman Kumar. The statement of
  respondent no.3 was recorded on 25.04.2007 under Section
  164 of the Cr.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga.  bn
D 08.05.2007, the investigation of the case was entrusted to
  Inspector Amarjit Singh, S.H.O. PS City-I, Moga. Some of the
  persons named by respondent no.3 in her statements were
  found to be innocent and were released. After completing the
  investigation, Inspector Amarjit Singh~bmitted a charge sheet
E on 01.06.2007 in Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C naming
  Simran Kaur @ lndu, Ajay Kumar, Vimal Kumar, Subhash
  Chander, Ramesh Kumar, Randhir Singh, Iqbal Singh, Bharat
  Bhushan and lnderjit Singh as accused persons.

       3. On 04.06.2007 FIR No. 160 was registered under
F Sections 342, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC at
  PS Baghapuran against several accused persons. One of the
  accused persons Ranjit Singh, however, made a complaint to
  the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) that
  he has been falsely implicated by Inspector Amarjit Singh in
G connivance with Manjeet Kaur because he had recorded a
  conversation by Inspector Amarjit Singh with him in the mobile
  that he would be arrested if he did not pay a certain amount to
  him and a compact disc containing the recorded conversation
  was prepared and attached with the complaint. Investigation into
H this case was entrusted to Inspector Bhupinder Singh, Deputy
     STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                   287
       INVESTIGATION & ORS. (A.K. PATNAIK, J.)

  Superintendent of Police; Bhaga Pura, District Moga. On           A
  completion of the enquiry it was found that the allegations
  against the accused persons y.iere false. Accordingly, on
  24.10.2007 FIR No. 198 W~l.S/registered at PS City -1, Moga
 .under Sections 7 and 13(.Zfof the Prevention of Corruption Act,
  1988 read with Sections 384, 211 and 120-B of the IPC against     B
  Inspector Amarjit Singh and Manjeet Kaur and respondent no.3
  and Inspector Amarjit Singh were arrested. During investigation
  it also came to light that Sub-Inspector Raman Singh, the then
· S.H.o:': PS Badhnikalan was helping Manjeet Kaur and
  respondent no.3 and that Sub-Inspector Raman Singh had            c
  accepted illegal gratification. Accordingly, offences under
  Sections 195, 201, 202, 218, 219, 221, 465, 468 and 471 of
  the IPC were added in the case registered as FIR no. 198 of
  2007 and Sub~lnspector Raman Singh was also named as an
  accused alongwith Inspector Amarjit Singh. Sub-Inspector          D
  Raman Kumar was also dismissed from service by the Senior
  Superintendent of Police.

     4. On 11.11.2007, Manjeet Kaur and resp~>ndent no.3
were arrested and during interrogation respondent no.3 alleged
that on 04.11.2007, Sub-Inspector Raman Kumar took herand           E
Bhupinder Kumar @ Rocky Sharma. to a place at Kamal in
Haryana, where Bhupinder Kumar@ Rocky Sharma raped her
during the night of 04/05.11.2007. On 13.11.2007, a news item
was published in the Hindustan Times headlined 'Moga Sex
Scandal' and two ladies, namely, respondent no.3 of Village         F
Varsaal and her relative Manjeet Kaur of Village Badduwal had
been arrested. This news was also published in the Tribune
dated 12.11.2007.

    5. The High Court took suo motu notice of the news items        G
and issued notices to the State of Punjab, Senior
Superintendent of Police, Moga and Deputy Inspector General
of Police, Ferozpur Range and directed the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Bhupinder Singh, who was
investigating into the case, to file the status report of the
investigation on the next date of hearing. On 15.11.2007,           H
    288      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   Bhupinder Kumar was arrested and FIR No. 225 was registered
    at Police Station Tarawari, Distt. Kamal under Sections 376,
    342 and 34 of the IPC against him. On 19.11.2007, status
    report was submitted before the High Court by Deputy
    Superintendent of Police, Bhupinder Singh stating that the
B   investigation is still in progress. On 19.11.2007, a Criminal
    Miscellaneous Application was moved by an advocate on behalf
    of Bhushan Garg and lnderjit Singh, two Municipal Councilors
    of Moga, alleging that at the instance of local influential political
    persons and senior police officers, many innocent persons,
c   including Bhushan Garg and lnderjit Singh were implicated in
    FIR No.82 dated 18.04.2007 registered with Police Station
    City-I, Moga. The applicants apprehended that the investigation
    may not be fair and proper because senior police officers and
    highly influential persons were involved in the case.
D        6. When the case was taken up before the High Court on
    20.11.2007, the Additional Advocate General placed before the
    High Court a copy of the order of the Additional Director
    General of Police (Crime), Punjab dated 19.11.2007 entrusting
    the investigation into FIR No. 82 dated 18.04.2007, FIR No. 83
E   dated 19.04.2007, FIR No. 160 dated 04.06.2007 and FIR No.
    198 dated 24.10.2007 to a special investigation team (for short
    'the SIT'). On 20.11.2007, the High Court observed that the SIT
    had been constituted without the permission of the Court and
    issued notice to the CBI for the purpose of entrusting the
F   investigation of the case to the CBI.

        7. Pursuant to the notice, the CBI appeared and stated in
  its reply that the CBI was over burdened with investigation of
  the cases referred to by this Court, the High Court and the Union
G of India and that it was facing acute shortage of man power and
  resources and therefore the case should not be entrusted to the
  CBI particularly when it does not have any interstate and
  international ramifications. The High Court, after hearing the
  learned counsel for the parties and after considering various
  status reports· filed by the state police passed the impugned
H
    STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                      289
      INVESTIGATION & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
order on 11.12.2007 directing that the investigation of the cases     A
be entrusted to the CBI. On 12.12.2007, the High Court passed
an order clarifying that the CBI has been directed by the order
dated 11.12.2007 to investigate into FIR No.82, FIR No.83 and
FIR No.198 of P.S. City I, Moga, FIR No.160 of P.S.
Baghapurana and FIR No.225 of P.S. Tarawari, District Kamal           B
(Haryana). By the order dated 12.12.2007, the High Court also
stayed further proceedings before the Trial Court in the case
arising out of FIR No.82 of P.S. City I, Moga, till further orders.

      8. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for the petitioner (State       C
of Punjab) submitted that the High Court had failed to
appreciate that on 01.06.2007 charge sheet had already been
filed against nine accused persons after investigation into FIR
No. 82 of Police Station City-I, Moga, and, therefore, no
direction could be given to the CBI to conduct the investigation
into the case. He cited the observations of this Court in Vineet      D
Narain v. Union of India [~}-1-SCC 226] that the task of
the monitoring Court would end the moment charge sheet was
filed in respect of a particular investigation and thereafter the
ordinary procedure of law would then take over. He submitted
that after the charge sheet is filed, the Court has powers under      E
sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. to direct further
investigation by the police, but the Court has no power to direct
a fresh investigation or reinvestigation into the case by the
police. He submitted that the High Court, therefore, could not
have directed the CBI to start a fresh investigation or               F
reinvestigation of the case after the police had filed charge
sheet under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. In
support of this submission, he cited the decision of this Court
in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 6 SCC
332] in which this Court made a distinction between further           G
investigation and reinvestigation and held that under sub-
section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P .C., the Court can grant
permission for further investigation and not for reinvestigation.

    9. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, learned counsel for
respondent no.3, argued that once challan is filed and charges        H
    290      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   are framed, the High Court cannot direct reinvestigation by the
    CBI. He submitted that in the present case, the challan had
    been filed on 01.06.2007 in respect of FIR No.82, Police
    Station City-I, Moga dated 18.04.2007 and the Court had also
    framed charges on 08.11.2007 and therefore the High Court
B   could not have passed the impugned order on 11.12.2007
    directing the CBI to carryout a fresh investigation or
    reinvestigation into the· case. He submitted that the High Court
    was conscious of this limitation on the power of the Court to
    direct further investigation and mentioned in the impugned order
c   dated 11.12.2007 that if the challan had been presented to the
    Court, the Miscellaneous Petition will stand as having become
    infructuous. He submitted that the impugned order passed by
    the High Court that the investigation of the case will be taken
    up by the CBI was, therefore, bad in law and should be set aside
    by this Court.
0
          10. Mr. H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for
    Respondent No.1 (the CBI), on the other hand, submitted that
    this Court has held in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi
    Admin[stration [(1979) 2 SCC 322] that even where a
E   Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon a police
    report submitted under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the right of
    the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police
    can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh
    information came to light. He also relied on a recent decision
F   of this Court in Nirrnal Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab & Ors.
    [(2009) 1 sec 441] wherein this Court has sustained the order
    of the High Court directing investigation by the CBI even after
    the charge sheet had been filed by the State police on
    completion of the investigation. He submitted that in Nirmal
G   Singh Kah/on (supra) this Court has clarified that the
    observations in Vineet Narain (supra) cited by Dr. Dhawan are
    applicable to cases where the investigation was being
    monitored and in such cases the monitoring of the High Court
    will come to an end after the charge sheet is filed. He submitted
H   that in the present case, the High Court found that the state
      ~TATE OF PUNJAB  v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                         291
       INVESTIGATION & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
police is not a position to carry out a fair and truthful                 A
investigation and has directed the investigation by the CBI in
the interest of justice in exercise of its powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.

      11. Mr. Raval further submitted that pursuant to impugned
order of the High Court the CBI has carried out the investigation         B
into the cases and the status report of the cases is as follows:

s.    CBI Case No.       Local Police Case     Status of the case
No.                      No.
1.    RCCHG2007S0031 FIR No. 82,         1) Investigation complet-
                                                                          c
                     dated 18.04.2007 of ed, which revealed that a
                     P.S. City I, Moga. false rape case was
                                         registered by the Moga
                                         Police.
                                         2) Charge sheet has been
                                         filed under Sections 366-A       D
                                         and 406 of the IPC and
                                         Sections 4 & 5 of the
                                         Immoral Traffic (Preven-
                                         lion) Act, 1956 against two
                                         persons, namely, Simran
                                         Kaur @ lndu and Ajay             E
                                         Kumar on 10.11.2008.
2.    RCCHG2007A0030 FIR No.198,         Investigation completed
                     dated 24.10.2007 of and charge sheet has
                     P.S. City I, Moga. been filed in Court on
                                         09.11.2009 in which the          F
                                         senior police officers of the
                                         rank of SSP and SP are
                                         sought to be prosecuted
                                         after sanction from the
                                         Central Government.
3.    RCCHG2008S0003 FIR No.83,          1) Investigation completed       G
                     dated 19.04.2007 of and charge sheet has
                     P.S. City I, Moga. been filed in the Court on
                                         10.11.2008 against Ajay
                                         Kumar and the Court
                                         convicted the accused on
                                         30.09.2009.                      H
     292      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A                                              2) Accused has filed an
                                               appeal in the Court of Ld.
                                               Special Judge, Punjab,
                                               Patiala and the appeal
                                               has been dismissed on
                                               09.02.2011. Accused has
IB                                             filed CRR No. 460 of 2011
                                               in the High Court, which is
                                               pending.
     4.    RCCHG2008S0001 FIR No.160,          Investigation completed
                          dated 04.06.2007     and closure report has
                          of P.S.              been filed in Court on
'C                        Baghapurana,         10.11.2008 and the Court
                          District Moga        has accepted the closure
                                               report on 12.12.2008.
     5.    RCCHG2008S0002 FIR No.225,          Investigation completed
                          dated 15.11.2007     and closure report filed in
D                         of P. S. Tarawari,   the Court and the same
                          District Kamal       has been accepted on
                          (Haryana)            03.06.2009.


     12. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (8) of Section 173 and Section
E    482 of the Cr.P.C. which are relevant for deciding this case
     are quoted herein below:

           "Section 173. Report of police officer on completion of
           investigation -
F          (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be
           completed without unnecessary delay.

           (2)(i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of
           the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered
G          to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a
           report in the form prescribed by the State Government,
           stating -               ·

            (a)   the names of the parties;

H           (b) " the nature of the information;
STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                     293
  INVESTIGATION & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
 (c)    the names of the persons who appear to be                A
        acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

 (d)    whether any offence appears to have been
        committed and, if so, by whom;

 (e)    whether the accused has been arrested;                   B

 (f)    whether he has been released on his bond and, if
        so, whether with or without sureties;

 (g)    whether he has been forwarded in custody under
        Section 170;
                                                                 c
 (h)    whether the report of medical examination of the
        woman has been attached where investigation
        relates to an offence under Section 376, 376A,
        376B, 376C or 3760 of the Indian Penal Code.             D
 (ii)   The officer shall also communicate, in such manner
        as may be prescribed by the State Government, the
        action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom
        the information relating to the commission of the        E
        offence was first given.
                       ,
        xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude
further investigation in respect of an offence after a report    F
under Sub-Section (2) has been forwarded to the
Magistrate and, where upon such an investigation, the
officer in charge of the police station obtains further
evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the
Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such            G
evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-
sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation
to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a
report forwarded under sub-section (2)".
                                                                 H
    294       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         "Section 482. Saving of inherent power of High Court -
          Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
          inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
          may be necessary to give effect to any order under this
          Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
s         otherwise to secure the ends of justice".

        13. Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. provides
   that every investigation by the police shall be completed without
   unnecessary delay and sub-section (2) of Section 173 provides
C that as soon as such investigation is completed, the officer in
   charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate
  ·empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police
   report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government.
   Under sub-section (2) of Section 173, a police report (charge
   sheet or challan) is filed by the police after investigation is
D complete. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 states that nothing
   in the Section shall be deemed to preclude any further
   investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-
   section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Thus, even
   where charge sheet or challan has been filed by the police
E under sub-section (2) of Section 173, the police can undertake
   further investigation but not /resh investigation or re-
   investigation in respect of an offence under sub-section (8) of
   Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

F         14. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., however, states that
  nothing in the Cr.P.C. shall be deemed to limit or affect the
  inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as is
  necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to
  prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
G secure the ends of justice. Thus, the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
  do not limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to
  make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any
  order under the Court or to prevent the abuse of any process
  of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The
  language of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P .C.,
H
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                     295
         INVESTIGATION & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
 therefore, cannot limit or affect the inherent powers of the H"igh     A
 Court to pass an order under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for
 fresh investigation or re-investigation if the High Court is
 satisfied that such fresh investigation or re-investigation is
•necessary to secure the ends of justice.
I
                                                                        B
         15. We find support for this conclusion in the following
    observations of this Court in Mitbabhai Pashabhai Patel v.
    State of Gujarat (supra) cited by Mr. Dhawan:

        "13. It is, however, beyond any cavil that ."further
        investigation" and "reinvestigation" stand on different         C
        footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior court
        in exercise of its constitutional power, namely, under
        Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct
        a "State" to get an offence investigated and/or further
        investigated by a different agency. Direction of a              D
        reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no
        superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction.
        Pasayat, J. in Ramachandran v. R: Udhayakumar [(2008)
        5 sec 413] opined as under: (SCC p. 415, para 7)

               "7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take       E
               note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain
               reading of the above section it is evident that even
               after completion of investigation under sub-section
               (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right
               to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not    F
               fresh investigation or reinvestigation."

        A distinction, therefore, exists between a reinvestigation
        and further investigation."
                                                                        G
       "15. The investigating agency and/or a court exercise their
       jurisdiction conferred on them only in terms of the
       provisions of the Code. The Courts subordinate to the High
       Court even do not have any inherent power under Section
       482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or otherwise. The          H
    296      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         pre-cognizance jurisdiction to remand vested in the
          subordinate courts, therefore, must be exercised within the
          four corners of the Code."

  It is clear from the aforesaid observations of this Court that the
B investigating agency or the Court subordinate to the High Court
  exercising powers under Cr.P.C. have to exercise the powers
  within the four corners of the·cr.P.C. and this would mean that
  the investigating agency may undertake further investigation and
  the subordinate court may direct further investigation into the
  case where charge sheet has been filed under sub-section (2)
C of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and such further investigation will
  not mean fresh investigation or re-investigation. ,But these
  limitations in sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. in a
  case where charge sheet has been filed will not apply to the
  exercise of.inherent powers of the High Court under Section
D 482 of the Cr.P.C. for securing the ends of justice.

        16. This position of law will also be clear from the decision
  of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kah/on v. State of Punjab & Ors.
  (supra) cited by Mr. Raval. The facts of that case are that the
E State police had investigated into the allegations of irregularities
  in selection of a large number of candidates for the post of
  Panchayat Secretaries and had filed a charge sheet against
  Nirmal Singh Kahlon. Yet the High Court in a PIL under Article
  226 of the Constitution passed orders on 07 .05.2003 directing
F investigation by the CBI into the case as it thought that such
  investigation by the CBI was "not only just and proper but a
  necessity". Nirmal Singh Kahlon challenged the decision of the
  High Court before this Court contending inter alia that sub-
  section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. did not envisage an
G investigation by the CBI after filing of a charge sheet and the
  Court of Magistrate alone has the jurisdiction to issue any further
  direction for investigation before this Court. Amongst the
  authorities cited on behalf of Nirmal Singh Kahlon was the
  decision of this Court in Vineet Narain case that once the
  investigation is over and charge sheet is filed the task of the
H
    STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                       297
      INVESTIGATION & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.)

monitoring Court comes to an end. Yet this Court sustained the        A
order of the High Court with inter alia the following reasons:
I   "63. The High Court in this case was not monitoring any
    investigation. It only desired that the investigation should·
    be carried out by an independent agency. Its anxiety, as B
    is evident from the order dated 3-4-2002, was to see that
    the officers of the State do not get away. If that be so, the
    submission of Mr. Rao that the monitoring of an
    investigation comes to an end after the charge-sheet is
    filed, as has been held by this Court in Vineet Narain and
    M. C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India ((2007) C
    1 sec 110), loses all significance".

Though the decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kah/on v.
State of Punjab & Ors. (supra) is in the context of the power of
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the above       D
observations will equally apply to a case where the power of
the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is exercised.
to direct investigation of a case by an independent agency to
secure the ends of justice.
                                                                      E
     17. This leads us to the next question whether the High
Court in the facts of the present case passed the order for
investigation by the CBI to secure the ends of justice. The
reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order dated
11.12.2007 for directing investigation by the CBI are extracted
herein below:                                                         F

    "The Investigating Officer, who is a D.S.P. in r~nk, will not
    be in a position to investigate-the case fairly and truthfully,
    as senior functionaries of the State in the Police
    Department and political leaders are being named. By this         G
    we are not casting any doubts on the investigating team,
    but it seems that political and administrative compulsions
    are making it difficult for the investigating team to go any
    further to bring home the truth. Apart from revolving around
    a few persons who have been named in the status report,           H
    298       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         nothing worthwhile is coming out regarding the
          interrogation of the police officers, political leaders and
          others. The investigation seems to have slowed down
          because of political considerations.

          Not less than eight police officials, political leaders,
B
          Advocates, Municipal Councilors and number of persons
          from the general public have been named in the status
          report. We feel that justice would not be done to the case,
          if it stays in th_e hands of the Punjab Police. Having said .
          this, we want to make one thing very clear that the team
c         comprising of Shri lshwar Chander, D.l.G, Shri L.K. Yadav,
          S.S.P. Moga and Shri Bhupinder Singh, D.S.P. have done
          a commendable job in unearthing the· scam.

          We feel it a fit case to be handed over to the C.B.I."
D
    On a reading of the reasons given by the High Court, we find
    that the High Court was of the view that the investigating officer
    even of the rank of DSP was not in a position to investigate
    the case fairly and truthfully because senior functionaries of the
E   State police and political leaders were to be named and
    political and administrative compulsions were making it difficult
    for the investigating team to go any further to bring home the
    truth. It further observed that not less than eight police officials,
    political leaders, advocates, municipal councilors besides a
    number of persons belonging to general public had been
F   named in the status report of the State local police. In the
    peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
    felt that justice would not be done to the case if the investigation
    stays in the hands of the local police and for these reasons
    directed that the investigation of the case be handed over to
G   the CBI. The narration of the facts and circumstances in
    paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this judgment also support the
    conclusion of the High Court that investigation by an
    independent agency such as the CBI was absolutely necessary
    in the interests of justice. Moreover, even though the High Court
H   in the impugned order dated 11.12.2007 did make a mention          -~
       STATE OF PUNJAB v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF                     299
        INVESTIGATION & ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
· that in case challan has been filed, then the petition will stand     A
  as having become infructuous in the order dated 12.12.2007,
  the High Court has stayed further proceedings before the trial
  court in the case arising out of FIR No.82 of P.S. City I, Moga,
  till further orders. Thus, the High Court was of the view that even
  though investigation is complete in one case and charge sheet         B
  has been filed by the Police, it was necessary in the ends of
  justice that the CBI should carry out an investigation into the
  case.

      18. In the recent case of State of West Bengal and Others
 v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West C
Bengal and Others [(2010) 2 SCC 571] a Constitution Bench
of this Court, while holding that no Act of Parliament can exclude
or curtail the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, has cautioned that the extra-ordinary powers of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must be D
exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations
where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and
confidence in investigation or where the incident may have
national or international ramifications or where such an order
may be l).ecessary for doing complete justice and enforcing E
fundamental rights. This caution equally applies to the cases
where the High Court exercises inherent powers under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. to direct investigation by the CBI forsecuring
the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
however, the High Court has held that the state local police was F
unable to carry out investigation into the cases and for securing
the ends of justice the investigation has to be handed over to
the,CBI. In other words, this was one of those extra-ordinary
cases where the direction of the High Court for investigation
by the CBI was justified.                                          G

     19. This is, therefore, not a fit case in which we should
exercise our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and
grant leave to appeal. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

N.J.                          Special Leave Petition dismissed.         H