KEDAR NARAYAN PARIDA AND OTHERS VS STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER
| Case Name: | Kedar Narayan Parida and Others versus State of Orissa and Another |
| Equivalent Citation: | (2009) 9 SCC 538 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 36 |
| Date of Judgement: | September 16, 2009 |
| Court: | The Supreme Court of India |
| Case No. : | SLP (C) No. 19947 of 2008 |
| Case Type: | Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the CoI |
| Petitioner: | Kedar Narayan Parida and Others |
| Respondents: | State of Orissa and Kabita Das |
| Bench: | Division Bench (Hon’ble Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph) |
| Laws applied: | The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 156(3), 169 and 173 |
Facts of the case
Respondent No. 2, i.e., Kabita Das, is the wife of late Bhagirathi Das of district Jajpur in Orissa. It was alleged by Kavita that Kedar Narayan Parida, who happens to be the petitioner in the present case, along with 19 others, killed her husband on March 28, 2007. The FIR was lodged, and the case was registered in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. The case was under the supervision of the Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP), Jajpur, who, after performing polygraph tests on witnesses, confirmed the presence of all 19 accused and made a case against all 19, but only three were arrested and only four were chargesheeted. On June 6, 2007, one local MLA, Parmeswar Sethi, made a written request for the transfer of the case to the Crime Branch (CB). On June 7, 2007, the Director General of Police (DGP), Orissa, asked the Inspector General of Police (IG), CID, CB, Orissa, to take over the investigation. However, IG turned down the request of the MLA and indicated that the view of the ASP was correct. On June 22, 2007, the MLA met the DGP and handed over alibis for two accused persons. On June 23, 2007, IG, CID,CB addressed a letter to IG Central Range, Cuttack, directing him to look into the matter personally and to issue a test note immediately. In his test note, the officer noted that direct evidence existed only against 7 persons, and accordingly, the filing of chargesheet against the remaining 12 accused persons was deferred.
Kabita Das addressed a letter to the high court complaining that out of the 19 accused, only three had been arrested and no steps were being taken by the police to arrest them or complete the investigation. The letter was registered as a Writ Petition on October 4, 2007. The division bench of the high court allowed the Writ Petition and directed authorities to take action against all accused persons based on the supervision note by ASP, and all actions taken on the basis of the 2nd issue note were to be quashed. The court directed that a charge sheet be filed even if the accused had not been arrested. This Special Leave Petition had been filed by petitioners against this order of the High Court.
Issues Raised
Whether the court could direct the investigating authorities to investigate an offence in a particular manner ?
Contentions of the petitioners
The principal contention of the counsel for petitioners was that the High Court was not within its power to direct investigating authorities to investigate an offence in a particular manner, and the court cannot direct the filing of an additional charge sheet. In support of its submissions, the counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha versus Dinesh Mishra, in which it was held that in case of disagreement between magistrate and police on a report under Section 169, though the magistrate has authority to disagree with such a report and direct police to conduct the investigation under Section 156(3), the magistrate could not direct police to file a charge sheet because the submission of the report depends entirely upon the opinion of the police and on the magistrate.
The counsel further argued that whether there is enough evidence to justify forwarding the case to the magistrate or not is to be determined by the police, and the magistrate has no role to play at this stage. The counsel then relied on MC Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, where it was held that judicial interference in investigations should be exercised with caution, and when IO, after considering all facts, considered the arrest of a person unnecessary, the High Court under Article 226 couldn’t direct the arrest of those persons as it would amount to unjustified interference.
Contentions of the Respondents
The counsel for respondents blatantly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and reiterated that when the supervision note was prepared by ASP, which had been affirmed by the IG and DGP, there was no reason for a further test note, that too at the behest of MLA, who had tried to influence the investigation.
The counsel further highlighted that HC exercising powers under Article 226 can direct a non functioning public authority to perform its function in a particular manner. To support this contention, the counsel relied on Comptroller and Auditor General of India v. KS Jagannathan, where it was observed that the HC has the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus where a public authority is functioning unlawfully and can compel performance in a lawful manner.
The counsel then referred to HS Bains vs. State (UT of Chandigarh), wherein it was held that a magistrate should take cognizance of the case and issue process if he/she is satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused.
Judgement
The special leave petition was dismissed, and the court held that there was no need to interfere with the order of the High Court.
The court, while deciding in favour of the respondents, held that the High Courts are well within jurisdiction to direct the investigating authorities to investigate in a particular manner if the HC is satisfied that there has been injustice to a party.
Rationale
The bench disagreed with the petitioners’ submission that the High Court could not have interfered with directions given by the DGP to the IG. The court noted that when any malafide action on the part of investigating authorities is brought to the attention of the High Court, the High Courts, in exercise of their inherent powers, are entitled to intervene to set right such actions of investigating authorities. The directions given by the DGP to the IG to submit a new test note, that too after the intervention of the MLA, who intended to influence the investigation and also produced alibis in favour of two accused persons, raise doubts about the bona fides of police authorities at the highest level.
The bench further observed that, though the courts should not intervene in matters of investigation, an exception has been made that, in certain circumstances, courts could intervene to do justice to parties.
The bench while referring to the CAG case and the HS Bains case noted that the courts, particularly the High Court, are guardians of the life and liberty of citizens, and if there are instances of misuse of authority, the high courts and the SC should step in to correct such injustice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision makes it clear that the High Courts and the Supreme Court may intervene in investigation proceedings if it is made known to the courts that the authorities have abused their discretionary powers or authority. Influential political figures frequently interfere with police investigations, yet they typically escape punishment. In this instance, a political figure had the highest level of police and the Crime Branch working on his orders. These officials received a proper censure from the court. The verdict is in Kabita Das’ and justice’s favour.
written by Charis Yadav intern under legal vidhiya
