IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1678-1679               OF 2009  (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1878-1879 of 2009)

Babubhai Jamnadas Patel  … Appellant  Vs.

State of Gujarat & Ors.     … Respondents

WITH  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO…1680/2009 @ SLP(CRL.)NO.888/09

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment  

and interim orders dated 5th December, 2008 and 23rd  

January, 2009, passed by the Gujarat High Court in  

Special Criminal Application No.1855 of 2008 and

order  dated  16th January,  2009,  passed  in  Misc.  

Application  No.15014  of  2008  in  the  said  

application.  The order dated 5th December, 2008,  

merely records the fact that the learned Government  

Pleader and the Additional Public Prosecutor had  

placed  on  record  a  copy  of  the  order  dated  

1.12.2008  passed  by  the  office  of  the  Police  

Commissioner  intimating  the  Senior  Police  

Inspector,  Sabarmati  Police  Station,  that  

investigation  of  Karanj  Police  Station,  F.I.R.  

No.254 of 2008, under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467  

and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, had been  

handed  over  to  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  

Police, “C” Division, Ahmedabad City.  By the said  

order, the High Court also directed the Assistant  

Commissioner  of  Police,  “C”  Division,  Ahmedabad  

City,  to  file  a  progress  report  of  the  

investigation  undertaken  in  the  aforesaid  F.I.R.  

dated 24th December, 2008.  It was also indicated  

that in the event final report was ready, the same  

2

was not to be submitted without prior intimation to  

Court.

3. On 23rd January, 2009, the learned Additional  

Public Prosecutor placed an “Action Taken Report”  

of even date before the Court.  In the said report,  

the  officer  concerned  had  stated  that  the  

investigation was being conducted according to the  

procedure followed.  Based upon the said report,  

the Additional Public Prosecutor was directed to  

convey  to  the  Officer  present  in  the  Court  to  

incorporate the details of the action taken by him  

from the date of the receipt of the letter dated  

5.12.2008 which, according to him, was received by  

him on 12.12.2008.  The learned Additional Public  

Prosecutor  was  also  directed  to  place  on  record  

the  steps  taken  by  the  Police  Authorities  in  

respect of Item No.13 mentioned in the Action Taken  

Report dated 11.11.2008 filed under the signature  

of  Shri  M.P.  Joshi,  Senior  Police  Inspector,  

3

Sabarmati  Police  Station,  Ahmedabad  City.   The  

matter was also adjourned till 30th January, 2009.

4. The said three orders are the subject matter of  

the appeals under consideration.

5. The lands comprised in Block No.84 of Village  

Ambali, Taluka Dascroi, were owned and occupied by  

several persons, including the respondents herein.  

According  to  the  appellant,  the  original  land  

owners  wanted  to  sell  the  lands  to  one  Kalaji  

Nathaji,  who  used  to  work  as  a  broker  in  land  

transactions.  Kalaji Nathaji got in touch with the  

appellant  and  informed  him  about  the  proposed  

transfer of the lands in question.  On receipt of  

such  information,  the  appellant  expressed  his  

willingness to purchase the said lands.  For the  

purpose of changing the user of the land and to  

arrange for the sale subject to such conversion,  

Kalaji Nathaji prepared a Power of Attorney of the  

original land owners in favour of the appellant and  

4

several persons who were not made parties to the  

said Deeds.       

6. Upon execution of the said Power of Attorney, a  

registered Sale Deed was executed for the undivided  

share of the original land owners in favour of one  

Godavariben Chunnilal Thakkar.  It may be pointed  

out  that  none  of  the  shares  belonging  to  the  

respondents herein was sold by registered deeds of  

sale.  On the other hand, the land forming the  

subject  matter  of  the  present  proceeding  was  

included  along  with  other  plots  of  land  in  the  

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 212.  According to  

the appellant, various farmers joined hands for the  

purpose of developing the property and they also  

jointly applied to the Competent Authority and on  

the basis thereof the lands in question were sold  

to form F.P.No.63 and out of a total area of 74,764  

sq.mts.,  52,335  sq.mts.  were  allotted  for  the  

aforesaid purpose.   

5

7. On 18.10.2005, the Respondent No.2 and several  

other persons executed a notarized Agreement for  

Sale and a Supplementary Agreement in favour of the  

appellant’s son in respect of their undivided share  

in the said lands.  A joint Power of Attorney was  

also  executed  in  favour  of  another  son  of  the  

appellant.  Soon, thereafter, construction work was  

commenced  on  the  said  final  plot  as  per  the  

sanctioned plans.  According to the appellant, more  

than three years after the date of commencement of  

the construction, the respondents and several other  

persons commenced various litigations against the  

appellant.

8. On  14th May,  2008,  various  people,  including  

the  Respondent  No.2,  filed  Special  Civil  

Application No.7572 of 2008 before the High Court  

in respect of civil disputes between the parties  

and the matter is still pending.  Thereafter, on 2nd  

June,  2008,  the  State  of  Gujarat  filed  Special  

6

Criminal  Application  No.1061  of  2008  before  the  

High Court for a writ in the nature of Mandamus for  

a direction to the police authorities of Sarkhej  

Police  Station,  Ahmedabad,  to  register  the  

complaint of the appellant under Section 154(3) of  

the Criminal Procedure Code.

9. F.I.R.No.187 of 2008 having been lodged on 11th  

August,  2008,  the  High  Court  disposed  of  the  

Special  Criminal  Application  filed  by  the  

respondent on 12th August, 2008.  Subsequently, on  

25th September, 2008, the respondents filed Special  

Criminal  Application  No.1855  of  2008  before  the  

High Court praying for transfer of F.I.R. No.187 of  

2008,  registered  with  Sarkhej  Police  Station,  

Ahmedabad, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.  

The said prayer was ultimately given up.  The High  

Court issued notice in the said writ petition and  

directed the concerned Investigating Authority to  

submit the Action Taken Report with respect to the  

7

investigation  carried  out  in  respect  of  F.I.R.  

No.187 of 2008 referred to hereinabove.  

10. By virtue of various other orders passed in the  

proceedings,  the  High  Court  asked  for  a  status  

report  of  the  investigation  conducted  in  the  

matter.  Subsequently, the F.I.R. in question came  

to be transferred from Sarkhej Police Station to  

the Sabarmati Police Station, Ahmedabad.  Two days  

thereafter, a prayer was made for transfer of the  

investigation to the C.I.D. (Crime) which was asked  

to  submit  periodical  reports,  so  that  the  

investigation could remain under the control of the  

High  Court  to  dispel  any  impression  that  the  

investigation was not being conducted properly by  

the police authorities.  On 14th November, 2008, the  

Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad (Rural), filed  

an affidavit, but on the prayer made by the Public  

Prosecutor, the matter was adjourned to enable  him  

to take instructions as to whether the affidavits  

8

filed  by  the  Superintendent  of  Police  (Rural)  

should be withdrawn or not.    

11. On 5th December, 2008, the High Court passed  

one of the impugned orders recording the fact that  

both the learned Government Pleader and also the  

learned Public Prosecutor were placing on record a  

copy of the order dated 1st December, 2008, passed  

by the Office of the Police Commissioner informing  

the  Senior  Police  Officer,  Sabarmati  Police  

Station,  that  investigation  of  Karanj  Police  

Station C.I.R.No.254/2008 under Sections 420, 465,  

466, 467 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code had  

been handed over to the Assistant Commissioner of  

Police,  ‘C’  Division,  Ahmedabad  City.  The  High  

Court directed the said officer to file a Progress  

Report of the investigation in respect of the said  

F.I.R. by 24th December, 2008.  The investigating  

authorities were also directed not to submit the  

9

final report, if ready, without prior intimation to  

the Court.

12. On 30th December, 2008, by an oral direction  

given to the Public Prosecutor by the High Court,  

the investigation was stayed till 17.1.2009.  On  

16th January, 2009, the High Court passed an order  

directing  the  Investigating  Officer  that  all  

materials/documents  that  were  felt  to  be  of  

importance in the case were to be collected and a  

report to that effect was required to be filed on  

the next date of hearing, i.e., 23.1.2009.

13. On  23.1.2009,  the  learned  Additional  Public  

Prosecutor  submitted  the  Action  Taken  Report  of  

even  date.   In  that  report,  the  Investigating  

Officer,  who  was  an  officer  of  the  rank  of  

Assistant  Police  Commissioner,  ‘C’  Division,  

Ahmedabad City, narrated the steps taken till then  

and what remained to be done by way of further  

investigation in the matter.  The Additional Public  

10

Prosecutor  was  directed  to  convey  to  the  

Investigating Officer who was present in the Court,  

that  steps  should  be  taken  to  incorporate  the  

details of the action taken by him from the date of  

receipt  of  letter  dated  5.12.2008.   The  learned  

Public  Prosecutor  was  also  directed  to  place  on  

record the steps taken by the police authorities  

with a specific item in the Action Taken Report  

dated 11.11.2008 filed under the signature of Mr.  

M.B.  Joshi,  Senior  Police  Inspector,  Sabarmati  

Police Station, Ahmedabad City.

14. Appearing in support of the appeals, Mr. R.F.  

Nariman,  learned  Senior  Advocate,  submitted  that  

from  the  orders  dated  5.12.2008  and  23.01.2009,  

passed  by  the  Gujarat  High  Court,  it  would  be  

evident that the High Court had, in fact, taken  

over the investigation by directing both the manner  

and  mode  in  which  the  investigation  was  to  be  

conducted and the course which such investigation  

11

was required to take. It was submitted that the  

impugned  orders,  together  with  the  order  dated  

16.1.2009, would actually indicate that the High  

Court  wanted  to  retain  control  over  the  

investigation which has only served to hamper the  

investigation and cause  severe prejudice to the  

appellant.  Mr. Nariman submitted that on several  

occasions,  the  affidavits  filed  by  Investigating  

Agency were rejected with directions to file fresh  

affidavits causing a good deal of pressure on the  

Investigating  Agency.   Reference  was  made  to  

various decisions of this Court, wherein a view had  

been  expressed  that  the  High  Court  should  not  

direct the Investigating Agency to submit a report  

in  accordance  with  the  Court’s  own  views.   Mr.  

Nariman submitted that it had been categorically  

observed that the High Court would be exceeding its  

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution  

of India in interfering with criminal investigation  

in passing such orders.   

12

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

decision of this Court in Director, Central Bureau  

of  Investigation  &  Ors. Vs.  ‘Niyamavedi’  

represented by its member K. Nandini, Advocate &  

Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC 601], where the point urged by  

Mr. Nariman was directly in issue. Considering the  

Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court,  

in  which  reference  was  made  to  the  material  

disclosed  in  the  course  of  investigation,  this  

Court observed that having regard to the provisions  

of Sections 162 and 172 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure, the Division Bench should have refrained  

from disclosing in its order, material contained in  

police diaries and statements, especially when the  

investigation in the very case was in progress.  It  

was also observed that the High Court should also  

have  refrained  from  making  any  comments  on  the  

manner  in  which  the  investigation  was  being  

13

conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.  

This Court went on to further observe as follows :

“Any observations which may amount to  interference in the investigation, should  not be made.  Ordinarily the Court should  refrain  from  interfering  at  a  premature  stage  of  the  investigation  as  that  may  derail  the  investigation  and  demoralise  the investigation.  Of late, the tendency  to  interfere  in  the  investigation  is  on  the increase and Courts should be wary of  its  possible  consequences.   We  say  no  more.”

16. Mr.  Nariman  submitted  that  the  aforesaid  

observation  was  sufficient  to  indicate  that  

investigation  into  an  alleged  offence  is  the  

responsibility  of  the  investigating  agency  which  

should not be interfered with by the Courts, except  

for compelling reasons.

17. Reference was also made to the decision of this  

Court  in  M.C.  Abraham  &  Anr. Vs.  State  of  

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

several criminal appeals were disposed of on 20th  

14

December,  2002.   One  of  the  issues  which  was  

considered  in  the  said  appeals  was  whether  the  

Court  had  the  power  to  direct  the  Investigating  

Agency to submit a report in accordance with the  

view taken by the Court.  While considering the  

provisions  of  Sections  156(3),  169,  173  and  190  

Cr.P.C., this Court held that while investigation  

is  in  progress,  the  Court  cannot  direct  the  

Investigating  Agency to submit a report in accord  

with  the  Court’s  own  view.   In  the  facts  and  

circumstances of the said case, this Court observed  

that it was open to the Magistrate, to whom the  

report  is  submitted  by  the  Investigating  Agency  

after a full and complete investigation, to either  

accept the same or to order a further inquiry.  As  

far as the High Court is concerned, it could give  

directions for prompt investigation, but it could  

not  direct  the  Investigating  Agency  to  submit  a  

report that is in accord with its views and that  

would amount to unwarranted interference with the  

15

investigation  of  the  case  by  inhibiting  the  

exercise of statutory power by the Investigating  

Agency. In the said case, this Court also set aside  

the direction given by the High Court that not only  

should the case be investigated, but a charge-sheet  

must be submitted.  This Court held that whether a  

charge-sheet  should  be  submitted  or  not  was  the  

concern of the Investigating Agency and the High  

Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in directing  

the same to be filed.

18. Mr. Nariman urged that the same question, as  

enumerated  hereinabove,  is  also  involved  in  

SLP(Crl.)No.888 of 2009.   

19. Referring to the order of the High Court dated  

21st October, 2008, Mr. Nariman urged that the same  

would clearly demonstrate the manner in which the  

investigation was being interfered with by the High  

Court.  Mr. Nariman submitted that the procedure  

adopted  by  the  High  Court  in  dealing  with  the  

16

matter was not contemplated under the provisions of  

the Criminal Procedure Code and while setting aside  

the order, the High Court should be requested to  

refrain from doing any act or passing any order  

which would have the effect of interfering with the  

investigation.

20. In  reply  to  Mr.  Nariman’s  submissions,  Mr.  

Dushyant  Dave,  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  

for the respondents, submitted that the powers of  

the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the  

Constitution  of  India  were  sufficiently  wide  to  

enable the High Court to direct a public authority  

to perform its duties in accordance with law when  

it is brought to its notice that the said functions  

were  not  being  discharged  by  the  said  public  

authority.

21. Mr.  Dave  submitted  that  through  judicial  

pronouncements  it  has  been  well  settled  that  

ordinarily the investigating authorities should be  

17

left to perform their duties, as provided for under  

the statute, but in the event, the said authority  

failed  to  perform  such  duties,  as  they  were  

required to perform, the Courts could direct, the  

investigating authorities to do so.

22. Mr. Dave referred to the decision of this Court  

in  S.N.  Sharma vs.  Bipen  Kumar  Tiwari  &  Ors.  

[(1970) 1 SCC 653], which was a decision under the  

old Code, wherein it was observed that though the  

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  gave  to  the  police  

unfettered  power  to  investigate  all  cases  where  

they suspected that a cognizable offence had  been  

committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person  

could always seek a remedy by invoking the power of  

the  High  Court  under  Article  226  of  the  

Constitution  under  which,  if  the  High  Court  was  

convinced that the power of investigation had been  

exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High  

Court  could  always  issue  a  writ  of  Mandamus  to  

18

restrain  the  police  officer  from  misusing  his  

powers.  Mr. Dave submitted that this Court has  

uniformly held that the Courts should not normally  

interfere with the investigative process unless it  

was established that the investigating agency had  

remained inactive for whatever reason.

23. Mr. Dave, then, referred to the decision of  

this  Court  in  Kashmeri  Devi Vs.  Delhi  

Administration  &  Anr. [(1988)  Supp.  SCC  482],  

wherein,  since  a  charge-sheet  had  already  been  

submitted by the investigating agency, a direction  

had to be given to the Magistrate to exercise his  

powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct the  

Central Bureau of Investigation to make a proper  

and thorough investigation in an independent and  

objective  manner  and  to  submit  an  additional  

charge-sheet, if any, in accordance with law.  Mr.  

Dave pointed out that the said decision starts with  

the  observation  that  the  case  in  hand  was  an  

19

unfortunate  case  which  tended  to  shake  the  

credibility of police investigation and undermined  

the faith of the common man in the Delhi Police  

which was supposed to protect the life and liberty  

of the citizen and to maintain law and order.  

24. Yet another decision of this Court referred to  

by Mr. Dave in this regard is the decision in State  

of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Ranchi Zila Samta Party & Anr.  

[(1996)  3  SCC  682],  where  also  directions  were  

given by the High Court for investigation by the  

Central Bureau of Investigation which was upheld by  

this  Court  with  the  further  direction  that  the  

investigation by the CBI would be under the over-

all control and supervision of the Chief Justice of  

the High Court.

25. To further bolster his submissions, Mr. Dave  

also  referred  to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs.  Union of India & Anr.  

[(1998)  1  SCC  226],  popularly  known  as  “Hawala  

20

case”, in which it was held that in the absence of  

appropriate legislation and even executive orders  

in  matters  of  public  interest  and  urgency,  the  

Supreme  Court,  in  exercise  of  its  powers  under  

Article 142 of the Constitution, can issue orders  

and directions to fill the gap for enforcement of  

fundamental  rights  and  doing  complete  justice  

between the parties.

26. Reference was also made to the decisions of  

this Court in (1) State of W.B. & Ors. Vs. Nuruddin  

Mallick & Ors. [(1998) 8 SCC 43]; (2) Nirmal Singh  

Kahlon vs.  State of Punjab & Ors.  [(2009) 1 SCC  

441]; (3) Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. Vs. Union of  

India  &  Ors. [(1992)  1  SCC  397];  and  (4)  

Comptroller  and  Auditor  General  of  India,  Gian  

Prakash, New Delhi & Anr. Vs.  K.S. Jagannathan &  

Anr. [(1986)  2  SCC  679],  wherein  in  the  

circumstances of each case, this Court directed the  

Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct fresh  

21

investigation in order to do complete justice to  

the parties.

27. Mr. Dave referred to various orders passed by  

the Gujarat High Court in similar matters, wherein  

similar  orders  were  passed  with  regard  to  the  

investigations and submissions of the Action Taken  

Report,  which  have  been  annexed  to  the  Special  

Leave Petitions.

28. The State of Gujarat has chosen not to file any  

affidavit, but has supported the submissions made  

by Mr. Dave.  

29. Responding to the decisions cited by Mr. Dave,  

Mr. Nariman submitted that while in the decisions  

cited  by  Mr.  Dave  certain  special  circumstances  

existed, in which directions had to be given by the  

High Court to the investigating agencies, there is  

nothing  extraordinary  as  to  the  facts  of  these  

22

cases  which  necessitated  the  monitoring  of  the  

cases by the High Court.

30. Mr. Nariman submitted that the dispute in the  

present cases related to the allotment of houses in  

the Shivalik (Ambali) Cooperative Housing Society  

Limited  and  the  dispute  was  of  a  purely  civil  

nature in respect of which suits were also pending  

and did not require any such directions for the  

purpose of investigation into the complaint made.

31. The area of dispute ultimately narrows down to  

the question as to whether the Courts can monitor  

investigations in respect of offences alleged to  

have  been  committed  when  the  investigation  had  

already been commenced by the investigating agency.  

There is little doubt that normally investigation  

of offences is the function of the investigating  

agencies and the Courts do not ordinarily interfere  

with the same.  But, at the same time the High  

Court is vested with such powers, though the same  

23

are invoked only in cases where extraordinary facts  

are involved, necessitating such monitoring by the  

Courts.  

32. In the circumstances, we are only required to  

see whether such an extraordinary fact situation  

exists in this case which warranted such a course  

of action to be adopted by the High Court.   

33. Though  Mr.  Nariman  has  in  unequivocal  terms  

denied that such extraordinary circumstances exist  

in this case, which requires monitoring by the High  

Court, it cannot be denied that the progress of the  

investigation has been tardy and slow.  It is in  

such circumstances that the investigation had to be  

handed  over  to  the  Assistant  Commissioner  of  

Police,  ‘C’  Division,  Ahmedabad  City,  with  a  

further  direction  upon  the  said  Assistant  

Commissioner of Police to file a progress report of  

the  investigation  undertaken  in  respect  of  the  

First Information Report dated 24th December, 2008.

24

34. Having regard to the factual circumstances in  

which the incident had occurred, the Court adopted  

the  procedure  for  keeping  a  watch  over  the  

investigation in order to prevent a miscarriage of  

justice.

35. In  cases  where  it  has  been  brought  to  the  

notice  of  the  Courts  that  investigation  into  an  

offence was not being carried on in the manner in  

which it should have been carried on, directions  

have been given by the Courts to the investigating  

agencies to conduct the investigation according to  

certain guidelines, as otherwise the very purpose  

of the investigation could become fruitless.  The  

decisions  cited  by  Mr.  Nariman  do  not  militate  

against  the  concept  of  the  Court’s  power,  where  

necessary,  to  direct  the  authorities  to  conduct  

themselves in a particular way.  Once it is proved  

that there are no other circumstances except those  

which were projected, the need for such monitoring  

25

diminished.  However,  there  is  nothing  in  the  

decisions  cited  by  Mr.  Nariman  to  even  remotely  

suggest  that  if  the  investigation  was  being  

stalled,  for  whatever  reason,  the  Courts  were  

powerless to pass appropriate orders to ensure that  

the investigation was proceeded with and justice  

was done to the parties.  

36. The said position has been reiterated in the  

various decisions cited by Mr. Dave, particularly  

in the case of  Kashmeri Devi (supra), wherein a  

direction  had  to  be  given  to  the  Magistrate  to  

exercise  powers  under  Section  173(8)  Cr.P.C.  to  

direct the C.B.I. to make a proper and thorough  

investigation  in  an  independent  and  objective  

manner and to submit an additional charge-sheet, if  

any, in accordance with law.  

37. The Courts, and in particular the High Courts  

and the Supreme Court, are the sentinels of justice  

and have been vested with extraordinary powers of  

26

judicial review and supervision to ensure that the  

rights of the citizens are duly protected.   The  

Courts have to maintain a constant vigil against  

the  inaction  of  the  authorities  in  discharging  

their duties and obligations in the interest of the  

citizens for whom they exist.  This Court, as also  

the  High  Courts,  have  had  to  issue  appropriate  

writs and directions from time to time to ensure  

that the authorities performed at least such duties  

as they were required to perform under the various  

statutes and orders passed by the administration.  

As for example, in the instant case, the High Court  

had  to  repeatedly  intervene  and  pass  orders  to  

ensure that the investigation was being conducted  

diligently. Periodical status reports were required  

in that regard.  In fact, the High Court had to  

direct the Additional Public Prosecutor to ask the  

Investigating Officer to incorporate the details of  

the action taken by him from the date of receipt of  

the letter dated 5th December, 2008. There is little  

27

doubt  that  only  after  the  High  Court  began  

monitoring the progress of the investigation that  

the Investigating Authorities began to deal with  

the matter with some amount of seriousness.  

38. We are unable to agree with Mr. Nariman that  

the  High  Court  in  the  name  of  investigation  

directed  both  the  manner  and  mode  in  which  the  

investigation was to be conducted or the direction  

in which the investigation was to proceed.  It is  

because of the tardy progress of the investigation  

that the High Court had to step in at the instance  

of the respondents herein.  It was at the instance  

of  the  State  of  Gujarat,  which  filed  Special  

Criminal Application No.1061 of 2008 on 2nd June,  

2008, before the High Court, that a direction was  

issued to the Investigating Authorities to register  

the complaint on 11th August, 2008, by way of F.I.R.  

No.187 of 2008.

28

39. The various decisions cited by Mr. Dave endorse  

the view that when required not only could the High  

Court  or  this  Court  direct  the  Investigating  

Agencies to conduct the investigation in a fair and  

unbiased manner, but that in exercise of its powers  

under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme  

Court could also issue directions for enforcement  

of fundamental rights and to ensure that complete  

justice  was  done  to  the  parties.  In  fact,  in  

Kashmere  Devi’s  case  (supra),  this  Court  had  

directed the Magistrate to exercise powers under  

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct the C.B.I. to make  

a  proper  and  thorough  investigation  in  an  

independent and objective manner and to submit an  

additional  charge-sheet,  if  circumstances  so  

required, in accordance with law.   

40. There  is,  therefore,  no  doubt  that  in  

appropriate  cases,  the  Courts  may  monitor  an  

investigation into an offence when it is satisfied  

29

that  either  the  investigation  is  not  being  

proceeded with or is being influenced by interested  

persons.  

41. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere  

with the orders of the High Court impugned in these  

appeals and we direct the Investigating Authorities  

to  proceed  in  the  manner  indicated  by  the  High  

Court  in  its  impugned  orders.  The  appeals  are,  

accordingly, dismissed.  

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

...................J (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: 02.09.2009.

30