LexSTATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.B. C.L.D., CHENNAI versus K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 12 S.C.R. 1141 STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.B. C.l.D., CHENNAI A V. K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2008) SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 B ~· --< [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 482 and 362 ~ Petition uls 482 seeking transfer of investigation to CBI - Petition disposed of by High Court rejecting the plea - c Subsequently High Court granting the same relief in interlocutory application filed in the disposed of petition - Propriety of - Held: The petition, having been disposed of on merit, it was not open to High Court in exercise of power uls • 482 to reopen and alter its order - s. 362 prohibits altering or D 1 ...._ review of final order - Court cannot give a go-by to statutory 1 provisions and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of ..... inherent jurisdiction - The only course open to the applicants was to file independent petition seeking such transfer in view of the subsequent events. E Respondents filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking interalia transfer of the investigation in a case against them for offence u/ss. 177, 186 and 506 (ii) IPC, from SBCID to CBI. The petition was disposed of by High court reusing . ... ""' to transfer the same. After about 3 % years DSP (SBCID) F filed an application in the disposed of petition seeking modification of the final order to the effect that direction for investigation should be given to DSP (CB CID) and not to DSP (SBCID) as the same was not empowered to conduct the investigation. Respondent also filed an G -; ~ interlocutory application in the disposed of petition seeking again, transfer of the investigation to CBI on the ground that he and the witnesses were ill treated and harassed by the Investigating Officer; and that the 1141 H 1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 12 S.C.R. ~--- ·A investigation was not being conducted in unbiased· manner. High Court, by the impugned order allowed the application directing transfer of the investigation to CBI. Hence the present appeal. B Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1The High Court fell in error in reopening r··-- the issue which was finally decided and refused earlier in the exercise ·Of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a petition which was filed in a disposed of petition. High c Court was not justified in handing· over the investigation of the case from the State Police authorities to the CBI auth,orities. '[Paras 4 and 25] [1145,C;1153,A] .: 1.2 S~ction 362 Cr.P.C. expressly provides that no Court which has sig'ned its judgment and final order D disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same except to correct clerical or arithmetical error save as otherwise 'x provided by the Court. Such being the position and in ,.;.. view of the express prohibition in Cr.P.C. itself in the fo·rm of Section 362, exercise of power under Section 482 E Cr.P.C. c_annot be exercised to reopen or· alter an order disposing of a· petition decided. on merits. Section 362 . I Cr.P.C. cannot apply in the facts and circumstances· of ' r the present case. "There was no clerical or arithmetical error in the order. [Paras 17, 21 and 24] [1150,H; 1151,A; F 1151,H; 1152,A; 1152.E] Sankatha Singh vs. State of UP 1962 Supp 2 SCR 817 -;..~ - relied on. 1 ~3 Section 482 Cr.P.C. enables the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to . . G any order under Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process ...__ - of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends o,f justice. The inherent powers, however, as much are controlled by principle and precedent as are its express powers by statutes. If a matter is covered by an express letter of law, H. the court cannot _give a go .. by to the statutory provisions STATE REP. BY D.S.P., S.B. C.1.0., CHENNAI v. 1143 K.V. RAJENDRAN & ORS. and instead evolve a new provision in the garb of inherent A ·jurisdiction. [Para 18] [1151,B-C] Hari Singh Mannn vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Ors. 2001 (1) SCC 169; Simlikha vs. Dolley Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee and Anr 1990 (2) SCC 437; Smt Sooraj Devi vs . ., ~, Pyare Lal and Anr AIR 1981 SC 736 - relied on. · ·· ·B 1.4 In the present case, the High Court, in the original final order, disposing of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has specifically given reasons for rejecting the prayer for handing over the investigation to the CBI c autho.rities. That apart, after the final
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.