T. C. THANGARAJ versus V. ENGAMMAL & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 29-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 647 
~ 
T. C. THANGARAJ 
A 
V. 
V. ENGAMMAL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1504 of 2011) 
JULY 29, 2011. 
B 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
CODE OF. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
Section 482 rlw ss. 154(3) and 156 (3) - Petition uls 482 c 
by complainant seeking direction to entrust the investigation 
to CBI stating that one of the accused was a Police Inspector 
in the local police - Allowed by High Court - Propriety of Held: 
It was not one of the exceptional situations calling for exercise 
of extra-ordinary power of the High Court to direct investigation D 
by CBI -
Order of High Court quashed and District 
Superintendent of Police directed to entrust the investigation 
to an officer senior in rank to accused-Inspector of Police . 
The respondent in both the.appeals, filed a complaint 
against an Inspector of Police and his wife (appellants no. E 
2 and 1 in Crl. Appeal no. 1505 of 2011) and their 
associate, namely, 'CT' (appellant in Crl. Appeal 1504 of 
2011) alleging that appellant no. 2 (accused-t) asked the 
complainant and her husband for a loan of Rs. 3 lac and 
they handed over the said amount to appellant no. 1, and F 
when the complainants' husband approached appellant 
no. 2 for refund of the said. amount, the latter referred him 
to 'CT,' who issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each, 
which were dishonoured. The complaint was registered 
as Crime No. 14 of 2006 for offences punishable u/s 409, G 
420, 471 read withs. 34 IPC. In the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 
filed by the complainant reiterating her prayer to entrust 
the case to CBI for proper investigation, the High Cou~ 
noticed that though some witnesses had been examined, 
647 
H 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A but the investigation was stopped suddenly on the 
ground that the complainant had received back the sum 
of Rs. 3 lac. The High Court held that the investigating 
agency ought to have conducted proper investigation 
and filed a final report in accordance with law, but as 
B accused no. 1 was an Inspector of Police, the 
investigating agency did not do its duty properly. It, 
therefore, ordered that Crime No. 14 of 2006 be entrusted 
to the CBI for investigation. Aggrieved, the accused filed 
the appeals. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In State of West Bengal and Ors.* the 
Constitution Bench of this Court has held that the power 
of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to 
o direct investigation by the CBI is to be exercised only 
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and 
such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine 
or merely because a party has levelled some allegations 
against the local police. In the impugned order, the High 
E Court has not exercised its constitutional powers under 
Article 226 to direct the CBI to investigate into the 
complaint with a view to protect the complainant's 
personal liberty under Article 21 or to enforce her 
fundamental right guaranteed by Part-Ill of the 
F Constitution. The High Court has exercised its power u/ 
s 482 Cr.P.C. on a grievance made by the complainant 
that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan 
transaction of Rs.3 lakh by the three accused persons, 
was not being investigated properly because one of the 
G accused persons is an Inspector of Police. This was not 
one of those exceptional situations calling for exercise 
of extra-ordinary power of the High Court to direct 
investigation into the complaint by the CBI. If the High 
Court found that the investigation was not being 
completed as an Inspector of Police was one of the 
H 
T. C. THANGARAJ v. V. ENGAMMAL & ORS. 
649 
accused persons, it should have directed the 
A 
Superintendent of Police to entrust the investigation to 
an officer senior in rank to the accused-Inspector of 
Police u/s 154(3) Cr.P .C. and not to the CBI. It should also 
be noted that s.156(3) Cr.P.C. provides for a check by the 
Magistrate on the police performing their duties and 
B 
where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done 
their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct 
the Police to carry out the investigation properly, and can 
monitor the same. [para 10] [654-F-H; 655-A-C] 
*State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection C 
of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. 2010 (2) SCR 979 
= (2010) 3 sec 571 - followed. 
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2007 (12) 
SCR 1100 = (2008) 2 sec 409 - relied on 
D 
Ramesh Kumar

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