Parallel criminal inquiry cannot displace an ongoing police investigation absent strong prima facie justification and fair procedure.

The SC held that an ex parte direction appointing a special officer to inquire into deaths was unjustified because the State had not been heard and no strong prima facie material showed inadequacy of the ongoing police investigation. It further held that a court should not direct a parallel or duplicated inquiry while the statutory police investigation is pending, unless there is a clear showing that the police are not acting properly, fairly, or with due promptitude. The overlapping inquiry would have duplicated witnesses and materials, creating confusion and prejudice, so the direction was set aside. The statutory police investigation remained in place, subject to limited supervisory safeguards to ensure fairness.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ex parte direction appointing a special officer for inquiry into the deaths was justified in the absence of notice to the State and without prima facie material showing inadequacy of the police investigation. (ii) Whether the Court could direct a parallel or duplicated inquiry while the statutory police investigation was still pending.

Issue (i): Whether the ex parte direction appointing a special officer for inquiry into the deaths was justified in the absence of notice to the State and without prima facie material showing inadequacy of the police investigation.

Analysis: The statutory power to investigate cognizable offences ordinarily vests in the police, and an order altering that channel should not be made without giving the State a fair opportunity to place the investigation record before the Court. An ex parte direction may be justified only in exceptional cases of urgency or where immediate intervention is necessary to prevent injustice, oppression, or loss of evidence. On the materials then available, no such urgency or prima facie basis existed for displacing the normal investigative process.

Conclusion: The ex parte appointment of the special officer was not justified and could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could direct a parallel or duplicated inquiry while the statutory police investigation was still pending.

Analysis: Investigation is the field of the police, and judicial interference is warranted only in exceptional cases where the statutory agency is shown not to be functioning properly, fairly, or with due promptitude. The inquiry directed by the High Court would have necessarily overlapped with the ongoing police investigation, required contact with the same witnesses and materials, and created confusion and prejudice. Such duplication was contrary to the scheme of criminal procedure and was not warranted on the facts found.

Conclusion: The direction creating a parallel inquiry was improper and had to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The statutory police investigation was left in place, with only a supervisory safeguard indicated by the Supreme Court to ensure that the inquiry proceeded properly and fairly.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts should not displace or duplicate an ongoing police investigation except on a strong prima facie showing of failure of the statutory agency, and even then only after following fair procedure and recording a sufficient basis for intervention.

---