D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. versus M.K. MOHAN KRISHNAMACHARI AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 441 · Decided: 14-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~-+ 
-+ 
~ .... 
-j 
.... ~ 
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 441 
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
M.K. MOHAN KRISHNAMACHARI AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1766 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.482 - Power of High Court under s.482 to interfere with c 
the investigation - Scope of - Held: It is statutory obligation 
and duty of police to investigate into crime and courts normally 
ought not to interfere and direct investigating agency to 
investigate in a particular manner - Inherent power of court 
cannot to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of D 
harassment or persecution - On facts, High Court, without 
recording any reason directed police that it was obligatory on 
their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seize 
property and file charge sheet - Directions were issued in a 
casual and mechanical manner without having any regard to 
E 
the possible consequences that may ensue from such 
directions - Exercise of inherent power by High Court 
ultimately resulted in harassment of appellants - Appellants 
were also not given opportunity of hearing - There was as 
such no a/legation of dereliction of duty on the part of the 
F 
investigating agency - Impugned order liable to be set aside 
- Investigation - Jurisdiction. 
On 18.9.2006, IVR Ltd. entered into a Memorandum 
of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent whereby 
respondent agreed to facilitate sale of 600 acres of land G 
in favour of IVR Ltd. for valuable consideration of Rs.28 
lakhs per acre. It was agreed that IVR Ltd. would retain 
Rs.2 lakhs per acre towards security for timely 
performance of respondent's obligation under the MOU 
441 
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A and in case respondent failed to comply with the terms 
+--" 
of MOU, the retention amount accumulated would be 
forfeited by IVR. 
Respondent could facilitate the transfer of only 64 
B acres of land in favour of IVR. IVR issued notice to 
respondent on 15.11.2006, but did not receive any 
response. Thereafter IVR entered into two MOUs directly 
with the owner~ of the land. 
Respondent lodged FIR against the appellants 
+ 
c alleging commission of offences u/ss.406 and 420 IPC. 
Police registered the case and commenced investigation. 
Respondent filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 
before High Court seeking directions to the police to 
seiz~ . .r~rn amount of Rs.228 lakhs for facilitating 
• 
D registration of 64 acres of land. High Co1.1rt, within one 
month from the date of filing of petition, finally disposed 
~-
of the same observing that it was obligatory on the part 
of police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, 
including recording of c:;~atements from witnesses, arrest, 
E seizure of property, perusal of various documents, filing 
of charge sheet. The Court accordingly directed the·· 
police to expedite and complete the investigation within 
j.. ... ~ 
six months. 
F 
In appeals to this Court, appellant contended that the 
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing directions · 
to the investigating agency to act in a particular manner 
which is unsustainable. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. There was no allegation of dereliction of 
duty on the part of the investigating agency. There was 
also no allegation of any collusion and deliberate delay 
on the part of the investigating agency in the matter of 
H 
D. VENKATASUBRAMANIAM AND ORS. v. M.K. MOHAN 
443 
KRISHNAMACHARI 
investigation into the case that was promptly registered 
A 
on the information lodged by the respondent The petition 
almost reads like a civil suit for recovery of the money. 
The petition was filed within one week of registration of 
the crime by which time the police had already started 
serious investigation. None of the appellants were B 
impleaded as party respondents to the petition filed 
under Section 482 Cr.P .C. The State represented by its 
Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, alone was 
impleaded as the respondent. The investigating agency 
in its counter filed in the High Court stated that after c 
obtaining necessary legal opinion, a case was registered 
and 'commenced the investigation'. It is also stated in 
categorical terms that the police had "inquired all the 
connected witnesses, recorded their statements and also 
collected the material documents and confirmed 0 
commission of cognizable offences by all the accused. 
[P

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.