LexR. P. KAPUR AND OTHERS versus SARDAR PRATAP SINGH KAIRON AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...
I
'
""'
...
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
143
R. P. KAPUR AND OTHERS
v.
SARDAR PRATAP SINGH KAIRON
AND OTHERS.
(S. K. DAs, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K. C. DAs Gul'TA
J. C. SHAH and N. RAJA.GOP.A.LA AYYANG.A.B, JJ.)
Criminal Procedure-Investigation of offences-Investigation
by Deputy Superintendent of Police under orders of Inspector-Gene-
ral of Police - Validity- Allegations against Chief Minister-
N ecessity of affidavit by Chief Minister-Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, I898 (V of I898), ss. Ij4, Ij6, I57 and 55I-Constitution of
Ifldia, Art. I4.
One S sent a complaint against the first petitioner to the
Chief Minister who sent it to the Additional Inspector-General
of Police who in his turn sent it to the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, C.I.D., with the endorsement " Register a case and
investigate personally". The Deputy Superintendent of Police
drew up a first information report. There were also three other
cases instituted against the petitioners or some of them, which
were being investigated into by the C.I.D. Police officers. The
petitioners contended that the respondents had violated the
provisions of ss. 154, 156 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure and had adopted a procedure unknown to law and had
thus singled out the petitioners for unequal treatment in viola-
tion of Art. I 4· of the Constitution.
Held, that the procedure adopted was authorised by s. 551
of the Code and in the first case the Inspector-General had
power to deal with the complaint and to direct investigation of
the same by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even if the
reason given for the Inspec.tor-General making over the investi-
gation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the case
was of a technical nature was not correct, it was open to him to
make over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of
Police in view of the status of the petitioners. The procedure
adopted in the other three cases was also not illegal, and there
was no unequal treatment of the petitioners in the matter of
the institution or investigation of the cases so as to entitle them
to invoke in aid Art. 14 of the Constitution.
H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. The State of Delhi, [1955]
l S.C.R. u50, King Emperor v. Nilkantha, 1.L.R. 35 Mad. 247,
Pulin Bihari Ghosh v. The King, I.L.R. (1950] I Cal. 124 and
Textile Traders Syndicate Ltd. v. The State of U. P., A.I.R. 1959
All. 337, referred to.
Since allegations were made _against the Chief Minister by
the petitioners, he owed a duty to the Court to tile an affidavit
stating what the correct position was so far as he remembered it.
October aB.
R. P. f{apur
c .... Others
v.
Sai'dnr Pratap
Singh f(airon
(.'..,.. Others
S. /(.Das].
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1961]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petition No. 59 of 1960.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
A. S. R. Chari, S. N. Andley, J .. B. Dadacltanji,
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the Petit.ioners.
S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of Pun-
jab, H. S. Doabia, Additional Advocate-General for
the State of Punjab, M. S. Punnu, Deputy Advocate-
General for the State of Punjab and D. Gupta, for the
Respondents.
1960. October 28.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
S. K. DAS J.-This is a writ petition. The three
petitioners before us are (1) R. P. Kapur, a member of
the Indian Civil Service, who before his suspension
was serving as a Commissioner in the State of Punjab,
(2) Sheila Kapur, his wife, and (3) Kaushalya Devi,
his mother-in-law. They have moved this Court
under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement
of their rights under Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitu-
tion, which rights they say have been violated by the
respondents who are the State of Punjab, Sardar
Pratap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister thereof, and
certain officials, police, administrative and magisterial
who have been conducting, or are connected with, the
investigation or inquiry into a number of criminal
cases instituted against the petitioners. We shall
refer to some of these officials later in this judgment
in relation to the part which they have played or are
playing in those criminal cases.
Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that
petitioner no. 1 had the misfortune to incur the wrath
of the Chief Minister of the State. It is alleged that
the Chief Minister was annoyed with petitioner no. 1,
because the latterExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.