Executive interference in cognizable offence complaints was impermissible; special treatment for selected persons violated statutory procedure and equality.

Executive instructions requiring complaints against a particular family in money-lending matters to be screened by a special committee, and the Collector's consequential communication, were contrary to the statutory scheme for recording and investigating cognizable offences. The Court held that no executive authority may defer police action or create a privileged procedure for selected persons without statutory foundation, as such interference defeats the object of the money-lending law and violates constitutional equality and the rule of law. The impugned directions were therefore illegal, unconstitutional, and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chief Minister's direction to accord special treatment to complaints against a particular family in money-lending matters, and the Collector's consequential communication, were lawful or were unconstitutional and contrary to the statutory scheme governing registration and investigation of cognizable offences.

Analysis: The governing criminal procedure requires that information disclosing a cognizable offence be recorded and investigated in accordance with law, subject only to the statutory discretion recognised under the Code. No executive authority can direct that complaints against selected persons be screened through a special committee or that police action be deferred merely because of the status of the persons concerned. The communication issued by the Collector, based on the Chief Minister's instructions, effectively created a privileged procedure for one family and interfered with the normal course of law enforcement. Such interference had no statutory foundation, defeated the object of the money-lending law meant to protect borrowers, and was inconsistent with constitutional equality and the rule of law.

Conclusion: The Chief Minister's instructions and the Collector's communication were illegal, unconstitutional, and liable to be quashed; the challenge to the High Court's decision failed.

Final Conclusion: Executive interference in the registration and investigation of complaints against selected persons was held impermissible, and the impugned directions were struck down while the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: The executive cannot direct a departure from the ordinary statutory process for registering and investigating cognizable offences, nor confer special protection on particular persons in derogation of law and constitutional equality.

---