STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. versus UJJAL KUMAR BURDHAN

Citation: [2012] 2 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 19-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 512 
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 
v. 
UJJAL KUMAR BURDHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 546 of 2012) 
MARCH 19, 2012 
[D.K. JAIN AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
s.482 - Inherent jurisdiction of the High court - Scope of 
- Allegation of irregularities against the respondent -
Departmental inquiries - Preliminary inquiry revealing certain 
irregularities in the procurement and milling of paddy -
Vigilance Cell of the Police department directed by State to 
0 conduct an inquiry regarding the alleged criminal acts - Writ 
petition by respondent ~ High Court directing the completion 
of the said inquiry within twelve weeks - Respondent filing yet · 
another writ petition praying for quashing of inquiry 
proceedings by the vigilance department on the ground that 
E an inquiry had already been conducted on the same 
complaint - By way of an interim order, High Court directing 
State Government not to take any coercive action against the 
respondent till further orders - For a similar relief, respondent 
filing another petition uls.482 - High Court quashing the 
investigation proceedings - On ~ppeal, held: Commencement 
F and completion of an investigation is necessary to test the 
veracity of the alleged commission of an offence - Any kind 
of hindrance or obstruction of the process of law from taking 
its normal course, without any supervening circumstances, in 
a casual manner, merely on the whims and fancy of the court 
G tantamounts to miscarriage of justice - High Court had itself 
directed the completion of inquiry within a set time-frame of 
twelve weeks, which was subsequently interjected by an interim 
order and finally the entire investigation/inquiry came to be 
H 
512 
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. v. UJJAL KUMAR 
513 
BU ROHAN 
quashed by the impugned judgment -. ft seems incongruous 
A 
that in the first instance the court set into motion the process 
of law only to ultimately quash it on the specious plea that it 
would cause unnecessary embarrassment to the respondent 
- High Court's interference with the investigation was totally 
unwarranted - The investigation initiated against the 
B 
respondent restored and the Vigilance Cell directed to 
proceed with and complete the investigation expeditiously, in 
accordance with law. 
s.482 - Scope of - Discussed. 
CRIMINAL LAW: Existence of an arbitration agreement 
- Held: Cannot take the criminal acts out of the jurisdiction of 
the courts of law. 
c 
The respondent was the owner of a proprietary o 
concern. The Food and Supply department of the State 
Government initiated an inquiry against the said concern, 
relating to the processing of paddy for and on behalf of 
· the Food Corporation of India. Preliminary inquiry 
revealed certain irregularities in the procurement and 
E 
milling of paddy by the respondent. The State 
Government directed the Vigilance Cell of the Police 
department to conduct a preliminary inquiry regarding the 
alleged criminal acts. The respondent filed a writ petition 
before the High Court. The High Court while ordering the 
issue of the enforcement certificate to the respondent 
pending the ongoing inquiry, directed the completion of 
F 
the said inquiry within twelve weeks. In compliance with 
that order, the Civil Supply Department issued 
enforcement certificate to the respondent. However, the 
respondent filed yet another writ petition inter-alia, G 
praying for quashing of inquiry proceedings initiated by 
the State vigilance department on the ground that an 
inquiry had already been conducted on the same 
complaint by the department concerned. By way of an 
interim order, the High Court directed the State 
H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 2 S.C.R. 
A Government not to take any coercive action against the 
.J..,. 
respondent till further orders. As a result thereof, the 
preliminary inquiry came to a standstill. For a similar 
relief, respondent filed another petition under Section 
482, Cr.P.C. The High Court quashed the investigation 
B proceedings. The instant appeal was filed by the State 
Government as also its two functionaries, viz. Director-
cum-Addi. D.G.P., Vigilance and Dy. Superintendent of 
Police, Vigilance Cell. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is true that the inherent powers vested in 
the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very 
wide. Nevertheless, inherent powers do not confer 
arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according 
D to whims or 

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