Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Anr

State of Orissa & Anr. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. One Kabita Das, wife of late Bhaguni Das @

Bhagirathi Das of Village Izapur, District Jajpur in

the State of Orissa, addressed a letter to the Orissa

High Court stating that one Kedar Narayan Parida and

19 others, including his sons, attacked her husband

and killed him in the night of 28.3.2007 at about

10.30 p.m. On the basis of a First Information

Report, lodged with the Mangalpur Police Station, Mangalpur P.S. Case No.28 of 2007 was registered and

on the basis of the said police case, G.R.Case No.468

of 2007 was registered in the Court of the Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jajpur. In her said

letter, Kabita Das, who has been made the Respondent

No.2 in these proceedings, complained of the fact that

though Kedar Narayan Parida was the main accused in

the case, only 3 persons out of the 19 named accused

persons, had been arrested and that the main accused

and his sons were moving freely in the nearby areas

and no steps were being taken by the police to

apprehend them or to complete the investigation. In

fact, in her said letter, Kabita Das prayed for a

direction to the police authorities to arrest Kedar

Narayan Parida and his sons and to take appropriate

steps against them in accordance with law.

2. The letter written by Kabita Das was registered

as Writ Petition (C) No.12626 of 2007 and on 4th

October, 2007, the High Court, after recording the facts contained in the complaint, also took on record

the detailed instructions which had been received by

the Learned Additional Government Advocate from the

Superintendent of Police, Jajpur.

In the order it was also recorded that the case was

under the supervision of one Shri Niranjan Swain,

OPS(I), Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur,

who, after examining the witnesses named in the FIR,

had come to the conclusion that a case had been made

out against all the 19 accused persons. Even then the

Investigating Officer arrested only 3 of the 19

accused persons, despite the fact that the polygraph

tests performed on the witnesses confirmed the

presence of all the 19 accused persons who had

participated in the assault with different types of

weapons. It was also recorded that out of the 19

accused persons, only 4, namely, Ajaya Kumar Ray @

Kunja, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu and Kartika

@ Jyotiranjan Sahoo, were charge-sheeted. Charge-

sheet had not been filed against the remaining 15 persons, though directions had been given by the

Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack,

to file charge-sheet against three more persons,

namely, Sudhanidhi Sahoo @ Mangua, Ashish Kumar Ray

and Pranaya Kumar Ray.

3. It appears that despite the conclusion arrived at

by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Jajpur,

the Inspector General of Police, Central Range,

Cuttack, intervened in the investigation and came to

the conclusion that the case could be made out only

against 7 persons and that the alleged involvement of

the other 12 accused persons named in the FIR needed

to be thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, at the

intervention of the said officer, filing of charge-

sheet against the other 12 accused persons was

deferred. The matter was directed to appear on

8.10.2007, on which date the Inspector General of

Police, CR, Cuttack, was directed to appear before the

Court to furnish an explanation as to why he had intervened in the matter and virtually directed the

charge-sheet to be filed only against 7 persons and

not against the remaining 12 accused persons.

4. The Inspector General of Police, Central Range,

Cuttack, Shri Santosh Kumar Upadhay, filed a Counter

Affidavit stating that the case had been supervised by

Shri Niranjan Swain, OPS-1, Additional Superintendent

of Police, Jajpur, who had found that the allegations

against all the accused persons appeared to be true,

and in his supervision note to the Investigating

Officer instructed that after the absconding accused

persons had been traced he would verify the different

pleas and alibis taken by them. In his said

affidavit, the Inspector General of Police, Central

Range, Cuttack, further indicated that one Dr.

Parameswar Sethi, Member of the Legislative Assembly

(M.L.A.), Jajpur, had made a request for transfer of

investigation of the case to the Crime Branch alleging

that persons who were innocent had been roped in. It was also indicated that in that regard Dr. Sethi had

met higher officials which prompted him to direct Shri

Santosh Kumar Upadhay to personally look into the case

and to issue a "Test Note" immediately. In the

impugned judgment it has been recorded that the

Inspector General of Police, Central Range, personally

visited the spot on 4.7.2007 along with the

Superintendent of Police, Jajpur, and examined the

progress of investigation as also the supervision done

by Shri Niranjan Swain. In his Test Note, the said

officer was of the view that out of the 19 persons

named in the FIR direct evidence existed only against

Ajaya Kumar Ray, Jugal Kishore Ray, Nityananda Sahu,

Pranab Kishore Ray, Sudhanidhi Sahu @ Mangua, Kartika

Sahu and Ashish Ray. The said officer was also of the

view that the involvement of the other 12 accused

persons required thorough investigation.

5. From the aforesaid affidavit of the Inspector

General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, it also stands revealed that he had relied upon a letter dated

23rd June, 2007, addressed to him by the Inspector

General of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, directing him to

look into the matter personally and to issue a Test

Note immediately. Accordingly, by an order dated 3rd

January, 2008, the Inspector General of Police, CID,

CB, Orissa, was called upon to file an affidavit to

explain under what provision of law he had made the

request for transfer of investigation on the request

of Dr. Parameswar Sethi and as to how the handwritten

note of alibi of the said MLA was passed on to the

Investigating Agency for consideration. In response

to the said direction, the said officer filed a

counter affidavit stating that on 6th June, 2006, Dr.

Parameswar Sethi had made a written request for

transferring the investigation of the case to the

Crime Branch. The very next day, the Director General

of Police, Orissa, by a written order asked the

Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, Orissa, to take

over the investigation of the case immediately. The said officer, however, inquired into the matter and

turned down the request of the MLA seeking transfer of

investigation to the Crime Branch. In fact, in his

affidavit, the said officer indicated that the view of

the Additional S.P., Jajpur, who had supervised the

investigation, was correct as far as all the 19

accused were concerned and that sufficient evidence

existed against all the accused persons of having

committed the offence. It was also mentioned that

only 3 persons could be arrested out of the 19 accused

persons and that since the remaining 16 were

absconding, the investigation of the case could not be

completed.

6. From the impugned judgment it appears that the

Division Bench of the High Court called for the files

relating to the investigation and it was revealed

therefrom that the concerned MLA had met the Director

General of Police on 22nd June, 2007, and had handed

over a note on his printed pad and in his own handwriting to the said Officer creating alibis for

some of the accused persons in the case and that the

said handwritten note was placed in the file by the

Director General of Police. It also appears that two

draft letters were prepared by the Inspector General

of Police, CID, CB, pursuant to the directions of the

Director General of Police, with a direction to

enclose a copy of the handwritten note of the MLA,

which were, thereafter, sent to the Inspector General

of Police, Central Range, for verification.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid facts revealed in

the affidavit affirmed by the Inspector General of

Police, CID, CB, a notice was issued to the MLA, Dr.

Parameswar Sethi, asking him to show cause as to under

what authority he was present during the investigation

and had suggested the alibi of the accused persons.

In his affidavit, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, tried to

justify his conduct on the ground that he did not want

innocent persons to suffer and that he was also not present at the time of investigation conducted by the

Inspector General of Police, Central Range, and that

only on one occasion on being asked by the said

officer, he had gone to his office and had informed

him that Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida were present

at Bhubaneswar in his quarters at the time of the

incident. By a further affidavit directed to be

filed, Dr. Parameswar Sethi indicated that in order to

explain the entire matter properly, he had jotted down

the names of the persons who are alleged to have been

involved in the murder case for his own personal

reference and that the same was not meant to be used

for the purpose of the investigation.

8. The submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae

before the High Court, Shri Debasis Panda, who had

appeared for the writ petitioner, Kabita Das, were

recorded by the High Court in its judgment and it

appears that on 15th May, 2007, a prayer had been made

to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (S.D.J.M.), Jajpur, to record the statements of Jaladhar Parida

and Pramod Mahalik, who were said to have witnessed

the incident, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 18th May,

2007, a similar prayer was made to the S.D.J.M. for

recording the statements of Krushna Chandra Sahu under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. On 1st June, 2007, a similar

prayer was made for recording the statements of two

other eye-witnesses, Prahllad Mahalik and Bholanath

Behera. It was only at this stage that on 6th June,

2007, Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur, wrote to the

Director General of Police, to transfer the

investigation of the case to the Crime Branch, as

indicated hereinbefore. By his order dated 7th June,

2007, the Inspector General of Police, CID, CB, turned

down the request of the MLA for transfer of the

investigation to the Crime Branch and on 18th June,

2007, the Investigating Officer requested the Criminal

Court to issue non-bailable warrants and proclamation

under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against Kedar Parida and his

sons. As soon as such prayer was made, Dr. Parameswar Sethi met the Director General of Police, followed by

an order issued to the Inspector General of Police,

Central Range, directing him to issue his "Test Note".

It appears that as pointed out by learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent No.2, polygraph tests

were conducted by the Inspector General of Police,

Central Range, on all the witnesses from whose

response nothing deceptive could be found and there

was, therefore, no reason for the said officer to

doubt their statements.

9. In his Test Note the Inspector General of Police,

Central Range, categorically indicated that in the

course of his discussions with Dr. Parameswar Sethi,

he was informed by the MLA that Shakti Parida, who was

alleged to have been present at the time of the

incident, was, in fact, in Bhubaneswar the whole day.

10. The Division Bench noted Mr. Parida's submission

that the statements made in the affidavits filed by

the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, clearly established the fact that Dr. Parameswar Sethi

was directly involved in the investigation process

right from 28th March, 2007. The learned Judges also

referred to the affidavit filed by Dr. Parameswar

Sethi, wherein he had asserted that Jyoti Parida and

Shakti Parida were present in his quarters at the time

of the incident, although, before the Inspector

General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, he had

stated that Shakti Parida had telephonically informed

him of the events in Bhubaneswar and that he and Jyoti

Parida were present around Bhubaneswar on that date.

The Division Bench also took note of Mr. Panda's

submissions that the second Test Note was without

sanction of law and that it had materialized on

account of Dr. Parameswar Sethi's interference.

11. The Division Bench also considered the

submissions made by Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel

appearing for Dr. Parameswar Sethi, that being a

public representative, the MLA had written a letter on his own pad on 22.6.2007 to the Director General of

Police, indicating therein that innocent persons

should not be made to suffer and that the

investigation should be entrusted to the Crime Branch.

The Division Bench also took note of the other

submission made by Mr. Kanungo that Dr. Parameswar

Sethi had visited the office of the Inspector General

of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, only once, on being

asked to verify certain facts and in response thereto

he had stated that two of the accused persons, Jyoti

Parida and Shakti Parida were present in his quarters

at the time of the incident and that the hand-written

note given by him on his own pad was not for the

purpose of creation of an alibi, but was simply a note

for his personal reference.

12. Upon examination of the materials before it, the

Division Bench of the High Court ultimately framed the

following questions for the purpose of deciding the

writ petition :-

(a) Whether there is any scope for a second

"Supervision Test Report", even after the

original supervision of the Addl. S.P., Jajpur

had been affirmed by all the superior officers,

i.e. up to the rank of D.G. of Police?

(b) Veracity of the Test Report issued by the I.G.

of Police, Central Range based upon views and

facts that emanate out of apparent interference

by Dr. Parameswar Sethi, MLA, Jajpur.

13. While answering the said questions, the Division

Bench after considering the provisions of Section 173

Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion that the filing of

charge-sheet against only seven of the accused persons

on the basis of the second Test Report of the

Inspector General of Police, Central Range, could not

be supported since the said Test Report had no legal

basis. According to the Division Bench of the High

Court, the earlier Supervision Note of the Additional S.P., Jajpur, which was in consonance with Rule 47-A

of the Orissa Police Manual and affirmed by the

Inspector General of Police, C.I.D., C.B., as well as

the Director General of Police, was sufficient for the

purpose of filing a charge-sheet and there was no

justification for the issuance of a further direction

to the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, to

issue a fresh "Test Report" and such direction was

without any lawful authority. In fact, the Division

Bench went on further to observe that it was apparent

that even in the face of clear prima facie evidence,

as stated by witnesses, 12 accused persons were taken

out of the purview of the charge-sheet, at the behest

of the MLA, who allegedly provided alibis for them.

It was also observed that the fact that 12 accused

persons had not been examined, went to prove the

clever twist given in the investigation of the case by

the Inspector General of Police, Central Range, to

exclude them from the charge-sheet. The Division

Bench, therefore, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the appropriate authorities to take

action against all the accused persons, according to

law, based upon the Supervision Note issued by the

Additional S.P., Jajpur. Consequently, all actions

taken on the basis of the Test Report of the Inspector

General of Police, Central Range, were quashed.

Further directions were given to the Investigating

Authority to act in accordance with the decision of

this Court in the case of Dinesh Dalmia vs. C.B.I.

[AIR 2008 SC 78] regarding filing of charge-sheet even

if the accused persons had not been arrested. The

role played by Dr. Parameswar Sethi in trying to

deflect the course of investigation was strongly

disapproved by the Division Bench which held that the

same amounted to interference with the course of

justice.

14. Appearing in support of the Special Leave

Petition, learned counsel, Mr. Amit Sharma, submitted

that this Court could be required to consider as to whether the Investigating Authorities in a case could

be compelled by the Court to investigate an offence in

a particular manner as indicated by the Court and also

whether the Court could go into the merits of the case

even before the trial had begun at a stage when

investigation was yet to be concluded. Mr. Sharma

also questioned the correctness of the filing of an

additional charge-sheet at the behest of the Court.

15. In this regard, Mr. Sharma referred to the

decision of this Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha &

Ors. Vs. Dinesh Mishra, [1967 (3) SCR 668], wherein

the provisions of Sections 169, 170, 173 and 190(1) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, were under

consideration and it was held that once the

Investigating Authorities had submitted report of the

action taken under Section 169 Cr.P.C. that there is

no case made out for sending up the accused for trial,

there is no power conferred on a Magistrate, either

expressly or by implication to direct the police to submit a charge-sheet. Incidentally, the aforesaid

provisions of the old Code are the same as those

contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

This Court made a distinction between the power of the

Magistrate to direct the filing of a charge-sheet on

the facts disclosed in a report under Section 169 and

the power of the Magistrate to disagree with such

report and to conduct an investigation on his own. It

was held that in case of disagreement with the Police

Report under Section 169, the Magistrate was within

his jurisdiction to direct the police to conduct a

further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

However, the Magistrate could not direct the police to

submit a charge-sheet because the submission of the

report depended entirely upon the opinion formed by

the police and not on the opinion of the Magistrate.

Mr. Sharma submitted that the direction given by the

learned Magistrate to file an additional charge-sheet

was contrary to the provisions of law and could not,

therefore, be sustained.

16. Mr. Sharma also referred to a three Judge Bench

decision of this Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.

Devendrappa & Anr. [(2002) 3 SCC 89], wherein, it was

observed that while exercising powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C., the court does not function as a court of

appeal or revision. Such power is to be exercised

sparingly and ex debito justitiae to do real and

substantial justice for the administration of which

alone courts exist. It was further observed that the

authority of the court exists for the advancement of

justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that

authority so as to produce injustice, the court has

power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of

process of the court to allow any action which would

result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice.

Mr. Sharma urged that the same was the situation in

the instant case where, although, on the basis of the

second Test Note it was found by the Inspector General

of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, that a case had been made out only against seven accused, the High

Court observed that the materials contained in the

earlier supervision note of the Additional S.P.,

Jajpur, which was in consonance with Rule 42A of the

Orissa Police Manual and affirmed by the Inspector

General of Police, CID, CB, as well as the Director

General of Police, was sufficient for the purpose of

filing a charge-sheet against all the accused persons.

Mr. Sharma urged that there was no bar on receipt of

fresh materials for the Investigating Authorities to

hold a further inquiry into the allegations made in

the First Information Report.

17. Mr. Sharma lastly referred to another decision of

this Court in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja &

Anr. [(2003) 6 SCC 195], wherein, while considering

amongst other issues the manner and scope of the

expression "investigation" defined in Section 2(h)

Cr.P.C., this Court held that the Magistrate could not

interfere with the investigation and by virtue of Chapter XII of the Code, the manner and method of

conducting investigation has been left entirely to the

Police Authorities. It was also held that formation

of opinion whether there is sufficient evidence or

reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the

forwarding of the case to the Magistrate or not as

contemplated by Sections 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. is to be

that of the officer in charge of the police station

and a Magistrate has absolutely no role to play at

this stage. In the said case reference was made to

the decision in Abhinandan Jha's case (supra),

wherein, after examining the scheme of the Code and

the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor vs.

Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18] and other

decisions of this Court, it was, inter alia, held that

the investigation under the Code takes in several

aspects and several stages ultimately resulting in the

formation of opinion by the police and such formation

of opinion was the final step in the investigation

which could only be taken by the police and by no other authority.

18. Mr. Sharma contended that the second Test Note

filed by the Inspector General of Police, Central

Range, Cuttack, was prepared after the charge-sheet

had been filed and not during the investigation on the

basis of orders passed on a writ petition. In support

of his submission, Mr. Sharma then referred to the

decision of this Court in M.C. Abraham & Anr. Vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 649], which

were criminal appeals heard along with other criminal

appeals involving the same question as to the extent

to which there could be judicial interference with the

discretionary power of the investigating agency. Mr.

Sharma pointed out that this Court held that judicial

interference with the discretion of the Investigating

Authority to arrest or not to arrest an accused should

not be exercised mechanically but with caution and

when the Investigating Officer, having regard to the

facts, considered arrest of certain persons in a case unnecessary, the High Court under Article 226 had no

jurisdiction to direct the State to arrest those

persons even though the case was still at the stage of

investigation, as that would amount to unjustified

interference with the investigation.

19. Appearing for Kabita Das, the writ petitioner

(Respondent No.2 herein), Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned

senior counsel, opposed the submissions made on behalf

of the petitioner and reiterated the stand taken

before the High Court that an attempt had been made by

the investigating authorities to derail the

investigation at the instance of Dr. Parameswar Sethi,

the local M.L.A. Mr. Ahmad reiterated that when the

previous note of the Additional S.P., Jajpur, had been

affirmed by the Inspector General of Police, C.I.D.,

C.B., as also the Director General of Police, there

was absolutely no reason for a further Test Report to

be prepared and that too at the instance of the local

M.L.A., who had not only tried to influence the investigation, but had also prevailed upon the

Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack,

to file a fresh Test Report giving a clean chit to

those accused for whom Dr. Parameswar Sethi had

provided an alibi.

20. Countering Mr. Amit Sharma's submissions that the

Courts do not ordinarily interfere with the police

investigation which is in the domain of the police

authorities, Mr. Altaf Ahmad submitted that the High

Courts exercising powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution can direct a non-functioning public

authority to perform its functions in a particular

manner. In support of his submissions, Mr. Altaf

Ahmad referred to and relied upon the oft-repeated

decision of this Court in Comptroller and Auditor-

General of India vs. K.S. Jagannathan [(1986) 2 SCC

679], wherein it was held in unambiguous terms that

the High Courts have the power to issue a writ of

Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the

Government or the public authority has failed to

exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion

conferred upon it by a statute or a policy decision of

the Government or has exercised such discretion mala

fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring

the relevant considerations and materials or in such a

manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such

discretion or the policy for implementing which such

discretion has been conferred. Their Lordships went

on to observe that in all such cases and in any other

fit and proper case a High Court can compel the

performance in a proper and lawful manner of the

discretion conferred upon the Government or a public

authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent

injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the

court may itself pass an order or give directions

which the Government or the public authority should

have passed or given had it properly and lawfully

exercised its discretion.

21. Mr. Altaf Ahmad also submitted that a Magistrate,

while considering a police report made under Section

173(2) Cr.P.C., was not bound to accept the same and

could himself take cognizance and issue process. Mr.

Ahmad submitted that the Magistrate was not bound to

accept the Test Report submitted by the Inspector

General of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, and was

entitled to take cognizance of the offences on the

basis of the earlier report, according to his

discretion. Mr. Ahmad referred to the decision of

this Court in H.S. Bains vs. The State (Union

Territory of Chandigarh) [AIR 1980 SC 1883], in

support of his said submission which was rendered on

the basis of a report submitted pursuant to an

investigation ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,

indicating that no case had been made out. Despite

the above, this Court held that the Magistrate could

still take cognizance and issue process if he was

satisfied from the materials on record, including the inquiry report, that a prima facie case existed

against the accused persons.

22. Mr. Altaf Ahmad submitted that there was

absolutely no ground for interference with the order

of the High Court, particularly in the facts of the

instant case.

23. Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel for the

State of Orissa, submitted that the investigating

authorities had conducted the investigation with due

diligence and although cognizance had initially been

taken against only 4 of the 19 accused persons,

subsequently, cognizance was also taken against the

remaining 15 accused on 2nd July, 2008. Mr. Mishra

also submitted that during the course of

investigation, the statements of the eye-witnesses had

been duly recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and on

9th July, 2007, polygraph tests were also conducted in

respect of the three witnesses whose statements had

been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in order to test their veracity. Learned counsel urged that it

was not as if the investigating authorities had

remained inactive but had pursued the matter with due

diligence ultimately resulting in process being issued

against all the 19 accused. Mr. Mishra also referred

to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in M/s

India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka [AIR 1989

SC 885], which was also on the same lines.

24. We have carefully considered the submissions made

on behalf of the respective parties and we are

satisfied that no interference is called for with the

order of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave

Petition.

25. We are unable to accept Mr. Sharma's submissions

that the High Court could not have interfered with the

directions given by the Director General of Police to

the Inspector General of Police, Central Range,

Cuttack, to submit a fresh Test Note despite the

supervisory report which had been submitted by the Additional S.P., Jajpur, indicating that a case had

been made out to go to trial as against all the 19

accused. When any illegality and/or mala fide action

on the part of the Investigating Authorities, either

on its own or at the behest of an interested party, is

brought to the notice of the High Courts, the High

Courts in exercise of their inherent and plenary

powers are entitled to intervene to set right the

illegality and/or mala fide action on the part of the

Investigating Authorities. The decision in H.S.

Bains's case (supra) clearly reiterates such

proposition.

26. In the instant case, although, the Supervisory

Report submitted by the Additional SP, Jajpur, had

been duly accepted not only by the Inspector General

of Police, Central Range, Cuttack, but also by the

Director General of Police, which was sufficient for

the Magistrate to frame a charge against all the

accused persons, a fresh direction was given to the Inspector General of police, Central Range, Cuttack,

to submit a Test Note. Such a direction given after

the intervention of Dr. Parameswar Sethi, who has gone

to the extent of providing an alibi for two of the

accused, Jyoti Parida and Shakti Parida, claiming that

they were present in his house when the incident had

occurred, not only exudes an unpleasant flavour, but

raises doubts about the bonafides of the police

authorities at the highest level.

27. In fact, it is on account of such intervention

that initially charge was filed only against 4 of the

accused and, thereafter, 3 more. No steps were taken

as far as the remaining 12 accused were concerned and

it is only when the action of Dr. Parameswar Sethi was

questioned before the High Court, that charge was also

filed against the remaining 12 accused persons.

28. We have considered the judgment of this Court in

Abhinandan Jha's case (supra) and the other cases

cited by Mr. Sharma. While indicating that the courts should not intervene in matters of investigation,

which, under the scheme of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, has been vested in the Police Authorities,

an exception has also been made that in certain

circumstances the court could intervene in order to do

justice to the parties. As we have observed in other

cases, the courts, and in particular the High Courts,

are the guardians of the life and liberty of the

citizens and if there is any flavour of deliberate

misuse of the authority vested in the Investigating

Authority, the High Court or this Court may certainly

step in to correct such injustice or failure of

justice. Such a view was indicated in the case of

Comptroller and Auditor-General of India's case

(supra) as far back in 1986 when on the failure of the

administrative machinery a Mandamus had to be issued

by this Court to grant relief to the petitioner to

which he was entitled from the said authorities, and

also in H.S. Bains's case referred to hereinbefore.

29. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Altaf Ahmad

that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this

case, it was necessary for such a direction to be

given by the High Court in order to prevent an

injustice from being done on account of the

intervention of influential persons, which not only

had the effect of negating the Supervisory Report of

the Additional SP, Jajpur, but also resulted in an

attempt to shield some of the accused persons.

30. The judgment of the High Court, in our view, does

not warrant any interference and the Special Leave

Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)

...................................................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH) New Delhi Dated : 16.09.2009.