Police investigation by superior officers upheld where no unauthorized special procedure or discriminatory treatment was shown.

Superior police officers may receive information about a cognizable offence and investigate within their jurisdiction without acting illegally merely because the information was not given only to the officer in charge of a police station. The challenge to a special procedure therefore failed because the criminal procedure framework permitted the use of CID officers. The equality-based challenge also failed because the materials did not show that the petitioners were singled out for impermissible or discriminatory treatment. On that basis, the institution and investigation of the cases were treated as legally valid, and no constitutional or procedural illegality was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the institution and investigation of the criminal cases against the petitioners were vitiated by a special procedure unknown to law, and whether the petitioners were singled out for unequal treatment in violation of the equality guarantee.

Analysis: The complaint and investigation processes in the cases were examined in the light of the provisions governing registration of cognizable offences and investigation by police officers. The Court held that an information of a cognizable offence is not confined to being made only to an officer in charge of a police station, and that superior police officers may exercise the same powers as such an officer within their jurisdiction. The use of Criminal Investigation Department officers was therefore not, by itself, illegal. The Court further held that the materials did not establish that the petitioners had been subjected to a legally impermissible or discriminatory procedure. Although the reasons for the administrative choices were not fully explained, the legal framework did not show any violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Conclusion: The challenge based on special procedure and unequal treatment failed; the institution and investigation of the cases were held to be legally valid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the merits disclosed, as no constitutional or procedural illegality in the investigation process was established.

Ratio Decidendi: Superior police officers empowered under the criminal procedure law may investigate cognizable offences without illegality, and a constitutional claim of discriminatory treatment fails unless the impugned procedure is shown to be unauthorized by law or applied with unequal hand.

---