Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a special leave petition filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd) against the order of the Delhi High Court dated May 14, 1996 in CWP No.1946/96. The High Court had directed institution of proceedings against Dr. S.K. Kacker, former Director of AIIMS, for an alleged cognizable offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code but refused to issue a mandamus to the police to investigate the allegations against him. The petitioner union contended that it had laid all necessary information before the Director, the Minister concerned, and the Prime Minister, but no action was taken, forcing it to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court found the petitioner's stand not correct in law. It examined the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cognizable offences, including information to police under Section 154, police power to investigate under Section 156, procedure under Section 157, submission of charge-sheet under Section 173, and the power of further investigation under Section 173(8). The Court noted that if police fail to act, the complainant may file a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200, and the Magistrate may either direct police investigation under Chapter XII, dismiss the complaint under Section 203 if no offence is disclosed, or take cognizance and issue process if a prima facie case exists. The Court found that the petitioner had not adopted either of these procedures. Without availing the statutory remedies, the petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking a direction for CBI investigation, especially since the CBI is not required to investigate all or every offence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in refusing the relief, though for different reasons, and dismissed the special leave petition. It clarified that the dismissal did not preclude the petitioner from following either of the indicated procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if so advised and deemed appropriate.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation of Cognizable Offences - Information to Police - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 154, 156, 157, 173 - The judgment explained that for cognizable offences, information must be given to police under Section 154, police have power to investigate under Section 156, procedure under Section 157, and charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 - Held that the petitioner had not adopted any procedure under the Code (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Procedure - Complaint before Magistrate - Alternate Remedy - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections 190, 200, 203 - The judgment stated that if police do not act, complainant may file complaint before Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200; Magistrate may direct police investigation under Chapter XII, or dismiss complaint under Section 203, or take cognizance and issue process if prima facie offence disclosed - Held that petitioner must avail these remedies before approaching High Court (Paras Not mentioned). C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Alternate Remedy and CBI Investigation - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner sought direction to CBI to investigate without exhausting CrPC remedies - Court held that CBI is not required to investigate all or every offence, and writ petition not maintainable without availing statutory remedies - Held High Court justified in refusing relief though for different reasons (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for directing CBI investigation into a cognizable offence without first availing the remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the Delhi High Court was justified in refusing to issue mandamus to the police to investigate the allegations against the former AIIMS Director.
Final Decision
Special leave petition dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot approach the High Court under Article 226 for directing CBI investigation without first availing remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court order was upheld though for different reasons. The petitioner is not precluded from following either procedure under the Code if so advised.
Law Points
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 prescribes procedure for investigation of cognizable offences
- information must be given to police under Section 154
- police empowered to investigate under Section 156
- further investigation under Section 173(8)
- complainant may file complaint before Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200
- Magistrate may direct police investigation under Chapter XII or dismiss complaint under Section 203 or take cognizance and issue process if prima facie case exists
- aggrieved person cannot bypass CrPC remedies and seek writ for CBI investigation under Article 226
- CBI not required to investigate all offences
- High Court justified in refusing mandamus
