Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arun Kumar Sharma vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 17 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(4)MPHT574
ORDER Narain Singh 'Azad', J.
1. The petitioner seeks calling of reports of hand-writing expert pertaining to Crime No. 355/98 of Police Station, Kotwali, Panna, for perusal of this Court in exercise of powers, so also the relief of appointment of some independent impartial investigation officer.
2. As per this petitioner, he was posted as Circle Organizer in Tribal Welfare Department at Panna since 11-8-1997 to 26-9-2001 and was incharge Branch Manager, Tribal Finance and Development Corporation, Panna, also holding additional charge. On the report of Collector, Panna, Crime No. 355/98 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Panna, against this petitioner for offences punishable Section 409, IPC and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case was handed over to non-applicant No. 5 for investigation, in course of which, the hand-writing of the petitioner was obtained and the same was sent for examination to Government hand-writing expert. Then, the petitioner moved an application in this Court seeking relief of anticipatory bail which was registered as M.Cr.C No. 8216/99. On account of non-production of report of the hand-writing expert, as called by the Court, this Court was pleased to grant ad interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner by order dated 31-3-2000, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-A. Therefore, this Court was further pleased to discharge the petitioner from anticipatory bail, by order dated 30-6-2000, on the ground of non-furnishing of the report of hand-writing expert, in spite of affording many opportunities. The copy of this order dated 30-6-2000 was ordered to be forwarded to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 which is marked as Annexure-B. In the light of observation made by this Court in order dated 30-6-2000, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8216/99, Additional D.G.P. punished non-applicant No. 5 by withholding his one increment. Since, the appeal filed by non-applicant No. 5, challenging the aforesaid order stood disallowed on 28-12-2001, he is making all attempts to concoct the evidence against this petitioner, with dishonest intention and compelling the hand-writing expert to prepare the report as he desires by bringing pressure over him.
3. It is also the case of petitioner that on the cheques and documents in question, the hand-writing of this petitioner was not found, as informed by hand-writing by hand-writing expert, through his letter No. CI.D./Q.D./C.X.-258/2000, dated 2-2-2001, still the non-applicant No. 5 is making attempts to change the report with intent to concoct false evidence against this petitioner and hence, the reports of hand-writing expert bearing No. C.I.D./Q.D./C.X. 258/2000/41/2001, dated 9 4-2001 and No. C.I.D./Q.D./C.X. 258/2000, dated 2-2-7001 be called for the perusal of the Court. It is also requested on behalf of the petitioner that investigation may be ordered to be handed over to independent and impartial officer.
4. It is found dictated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, reported in AIR 1963 SC 447 that-
"Section 154, Cr.PC deals with information in cognizable offences and Section 156 with investigation into such offences and under these sections, the police has the statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of power under Section 439 or under the inherent power of the Court under Section 561A, when there was no case pending at the time."
Then, relying on aforesaid authority and R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, it is further found explained by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Hazari Lal v. Rameshwar Prasad, reported in AIR 1972 SC 484, in para 12, page 486 that-
"In exercising jurisdiction under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court can quash proceedings if there is no evidence or if there is any impediment to the institution or continuance of proceedings but the High Court does not ordinarily enquire as to the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is carried on under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be impeding investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code."
5. Then, it is found commented by P.C. Sarkar also in 7th Edition of Criminal Procedure Code, at page 1429, under Section 482, referring the case of Janta Dal v. H.S. Choudhari, 1993 Cr.LJ 600 SC, that-
"The Judge had taken an extreme view that the Court can take judicial notice of any illegality with a view to preventing like injury from being caused to known or unknown aggrieved party even when investigation is at its threshold. In doing so, he had overstepped his prosecution. His order (purporting to be under Section 482, Cr.PC taking suo motu cognizance issuing show-cause notice to the CBI and the State was quashed."
It is also found explained by P.C. Sarkar that so long as the Investigating Officer is making investigation independently without the assistance of Court, it is not within the power of the High Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482, Cr.PC, to interfere with the investigation and the question as to whether the FIR should be quashed and whether any interference is required, could be gone into by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. It is further explained by P.C. Sarkar at aforesaid page of Commentary that the Court cannot interfere with in exercise of the power under Section 482, in the collection of evidence and arrest even by illegal methods.
6. Thus, in the light of aforesaid legal position, no interference is called for, as sought by the petitioner, in exercise of inherent powers, and hence, this petition does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.