LexDIVINE RETREAT CENTRE versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l J [2008] 4 S.C.R. 701 DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE A ). v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 472 of 200.8) MARCH 11, 2008 B . [S.H. KAPADIA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.) .. Jurisdiction: ~ Jurisdiction of High Court- Qua registration of crime and c investigation -Anonymous petition to High Court, addressed to a named Judge - AHeging commission of crime against a particular victim and allegations in general made against an institution - Initiation. of proceedings Suo motu - Further withdrawing the investigation of the case in re$pect of the particular victim from the Investigating Officer and entrusting D the same to Special Investigation Team - Direction to Special ~ !fJvestigation Team also to investigate in respect of general . allegations wherefor no complaint lodged - On appeal, held: High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction either u/s 482 Cr. P. C. or under ArtiC/e 226 of Constitution, cannot direct investigation E by' constituting a Special Investigation Team on the strength of wild_ a/legations in anonymous petitions without forming any prima facie opinion in respect of those a/legations - Direction of investigation into a/legations in respect of which no complaint lodged, is violative of principles of natural justice - F .. Neither of the parties entitled to choose their own investigating ., agency ..... The power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the comiition of which that power is granted-Investigation- Principles of Natural Justice- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 48- Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 2262. G Ju._risdiction of High Court under Article 226 of -. Constitution vis;_a-vis s. 482 Cr.PC. - Held: The remedies .,., 1 . available 0 underArticle 226 are neither echoed nor transplanted info s. 482 - Powers under both the provisions operate in 701 H A B c . ) 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. different fields - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 482 - Inherent power under -Nature and scope of - Discussed. Practice and Procedure: Letter Petition - Entertaining of- By Constitutional Courts - Procedure - Held: Individual Judges not to entertain communications and letters personally addressed to them unless the same is allocated to him by the Chief Justice - All petitions invoking jurisdiction of the court must be addressed to the entire court and not to any individual judge - Epistolary Jurisdiction. Anonymous petitions - Addressed to a named Judge - Held: Suo motu proceedings Cannot be initiated thereon . Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Scope of - Interference with the Investigation - Held: Such power to be exercised in rarest of rare cases where non-compliance with the provisions of chapter XII of Cr.P. C. - Even in such cases, E High Court cannot direct as to how the investigation is to be concluded. \ ) , ., l, ._ Jc ~ .. Locus Standi - Anonymous petition before High Court - Registration of case - Director of the Institution impleaded as party-accused - High Court directing investigation by Special F Investigation Team - Locus standi of the institution to challenge J. G the order of High Court - Held: The institution had the locus 'f since the a/legations in the petition were against the institution and since its Director was impleaded as party - Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. Public Interest Litigation - Entertainment of - When - Held: A Public Interest Litigation can be entertained only at the instance of bonafide litigant - An anonymous petition cannot be treated as Public Interest Litigation as there is no H way to verify its bonafide- Suo motu action initiated cannot be ', i DIVINE RETREAT CENTRE v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS. treated as the one in Public Interest Litigation. 703 A A female remand prisoner, sent a petition to District Judge alleging that while she was taking shelter in the appellant-institution, she was molested and exploited by the head of the institution and that she became pregnant. When she came out of the institution, she was implicated 8 in false theft case and lodged in jail. District Judge forwarded the petition to the Magistrate and also to the 'High Court. The Magistrate ordered investigation into the matter. Subsequently, a case (Crime No.381 of 2005) was registered u/s. 376(g) IPC. The petition was placed before C the High Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.