AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 1384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Kumar, Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Prakhar Sharma, Rani Jethmalani and S. Thananjayan, Advs. JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, J. 1. Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008. 2. Leave granted. 3. These are two appeals against the order dated 26.10.2007 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Original Petition No. 10987 of 2007 directing that investigation into the case registered as Crime No. 14 of 2006 with the District Crime Branch (DCB), Virudunagar, be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai (for short 'the CBI'). 4. The facts briefly are that on 04.08.2006 a complaint was submitted by V. Engammal, who has been impleaded as a Respondent in both the appeals (hereinafter refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e complaint, the complainant requested the Superintendent of Police to initiate action against the Inspector, P. Kalaikathiravan, his wife P. Suganthi and T.C. Thangaraj, who had cheated the complainant and her husband. The Superintendent of Police sent the complaint to the Office In charge of DCB, Police Station Virudunagar, on 04.08.2006 and the complaint was registered as Crime No. 14 of 2006 under Sections 409, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC'). 5. When there was no progress in the investigation on the complaint, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No. 8782 of 2006 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code of Criminal Procedure') before the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase diary found that some witnesses have been examined but the investigation had been stopped suddenly on the ground that the complainant had received back the sum of ₹ 3 lakh on 05.08.2006. The High Court held in the impugned order that even though the amount in question had been received back by the complainant, the investigating agency ought to have conducted proper investigation and filed a final report in accordance with law, but the investigating agency had failed to do it. The High Court further held that as the accused No. 1 was an Inspector of Police, the investigating agency has not done its duty properly and under the circumstances, relief claimed by the complainant should be granted and accordingly ordered that Crime No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while taking the view that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cautioned that the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations. Para 70 of the opinion of the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors. (supra) is extracted herein below: Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The ve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst the local police. In the impugned order, the High Court has not exercised its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed the CBI to investigate into the complaint with a view to protect her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution or to enforce her fundamental right guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution. The High Court has exercised its power under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure on a grievance made by the complainant that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan transaction of ₹ 3 lakh by the three accused persons, was not being investigated properly because one of the accused persons is an Inspector of Police. In our considered view, this was not one of those exception....