The High Court declined to interfere with an ongoing police investigation. It dismissed petitions challenging internal police communications, investigation notices, and the maintenance of an information notice issued under CrPC Section 160.
Petitions dismissed; investigation allowed to proceed; no direction given for CBI investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 15
NAFR
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (Cr.) No.1009 of 2022
Mani Shankar Pandey, S/o Late Shri R.K. Pandey, aged about 52 years, R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Tiphra, Bilaspur, P.S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
AND
Writ Petition (Cr.) No.36 of 2023
Vijaya Pathak, W/o Late Jagat Pathak, Aged about 60 years (Pradhan Sampadika), Editor-in-Chief, Jagat Vision Patrika, R/o F 161/17, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
Page 2 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioners: Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Union of India: Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate. For Enforcement Directorate: - Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For State of Chhattisgarh: - Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General. For Private Respondent – Vinod Verma: - Mr. Sudeep Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and H on’ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ.
Order On Board (17/03/2023)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Page 3 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
dated 15-12-2022 made by the complainant / private respondent herein to the Superintendent of Police, Durg and in turn, the Superintendent of Police has directed the Additional Superintendent of Police, Durg to take cognizance / enquire the complaint and submit report, therefore, both the writ petitions have been clubbed together and heard together on the question of admission and are being disposed of by this common order. In addition to that, in W.P. (Cr.)No.1009/2022, the petitioner has also called in question the notice Annexure P-3 dated 22-12-2022 issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police (City), Durg to Police Station Supela and the petitioner has also sought high level investigation preferably by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding the illegal action of respondent No.9 – Vinod Verma. In W.P.(Cr.)No.36/2023, the petitioner has also questioned the notice dated 23-12-2022 (Annexure P-3) by which notice under Section 160 of the CrPC has been issued to her seeking information with regard to the article published by her on 5-10-2022 in her magazine titled as Mahadev Online Satta.
Page 4 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
(Annexure P-3) are also illegal, erroneous and liable to be set aside and the matter be handed-over for high level investigation preferably by CBI. Qua W.P.(Cr.)No.36/2023 , he would submit that articles have been published after due verification and no false or fake news has been published on the titled articles on 5-10-2022 in the monthly magazine “Jagat Vision” and as such, notices dated 20-12-2022 & 22-12-2022 (Annexure P-2) are without jurisdiction and without authority of law and even the notice Annexure P-3 dated 23-12-2022 is also without jurisdiction and without authority of law and are liable to be quashed.
Page 5 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
offence, information has been sought pursuant to the article published by the petitioner (therein) on 5-10-2022. As such, both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Page 6 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
petitioner in W.P.(Cr.)No.36/2023 is owner, publisher, editor and printer, whereas the petitioner in W.P.(Cr.)No.1009/2022 is the Bureau Chief. In the said news article, allegations were made against the private respondent herein – Vinod Verma pursuant to which the private respondent made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Durg vide letter dated 15-12-2022 (Annexure P-1) for making enquiry and also for enquiring the role of the two petitioners herein and the Superintendent of Police on receipt of the said complaint, directed the Additional Superintendent of Police (City), Durg vide Annexure P-2 in both the writ petitions to enquire into the matter and submit the factual enquiry report within seven days, who in turn, directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Supela vide Annexure P-3 to do the needful which has been sought to be challenged in both the writ petitions and Annexure P-3 dated 23-12-2022 which is the notice under Section 160 of the CrPC has also been challenged in W.P.(Cr.)No.36/2023. Meanwhile, the writ petitions have been filed seeking quashment of Annexures P-1, P-2 & P-3 stating that it is contrary to law and are liable to be quashed.
Page 7 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
in nature. The same has been filed without there being any action that aggrieves the petitioner and give rise to a locus for challenging the same.
Page 8 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
has been registered at Police Station Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg and investigation is going on and certain information has been sought from the petitioner in W.P.(Cr.) No.36/2023. As such, it is quite apparent that investigation pursuant to the complaint made by the private respondent, which is subject matter of the news article published by both the petitioners, is going on and in progress.
“61. The investigation of a cognizable offence and the various stages thereon including the interrogation of the accused is exclusively reserved for the investigating agency whose powers are unfettered so long as the investigating officer exercises his investigating powers well within the provisions of the law and the legal bounds. In exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, the Court can interfere and issue appropriate direction only when the Court is convinced that the power of the investigating officer is exercised mala fide or where there is abuse of power and non-compliance of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this power of invoking inherent jurisdiction to issue direction and interfering with the investigation is exercised only in rare cases where there is abuse of process or non-compliance of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Page 9 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
does not violate any provision of law. It must be left to the discretion of the investigating agency to decide the course of investigation. If the court is to interfere in each and every stage of the investigation and the interrogation of the accused, it would affect the normal course of investigation. It must be left to the investigating agency to proceed in its own manner in interrogation of the accused, nature of questions put to him and the manner of interrogation of the accused.”
10.Similarly, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in paragraph 80, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that Courts should not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences by observing as under: -
“80. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/ not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/ complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;
iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
Page 10 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
Page 11 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab4 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5 , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/ complaint;
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/ or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under
4 AIR 1960 SC 866
5 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Page 12 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.
xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by “no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.”
11.Since, in the present case, investigation is going on pursuant to the complaint made by the private respondent herein and in view of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it would be inappropriate at this stage while the investigation is in progress to interfere with the investigation, particularly when Annexures P-1 & P-3 in W.P.(Cr.)No.1009/2022 are nothing but only internal communications between respondents No.6 to 8 therein and only investigation / enquiry has been directed to be made by the concerned authorities with regard to the complaint made by respondent No. 9 therein. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mahadeo and others v. Sovan Devi and others 6
6 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1118
Page 13 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
has simply held that inter-departmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. As such, quashing Annexures P-1 to P-3 in W.P.(Cr.)No.1009/2022 and Annexures P- 1 & P-2 in W.P.(Cr.)No.36/2023 would not be appropriate, therefore, we hereby decline to entertain the writ petitions.
Page 14 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”
Page 15 of 15
{W.P.(Cr.)Nos.1009/2022 & 36/2023}
writ petitions would not bar the petitioners to proceed further in accordance with law, if offence is registered and any criminal action
is sought to be taken against any of them. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge
Soma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ petitions challenging police internal communications and investigation notices are maintainable while investigation is pending.
Whether the High Court can direct a CBI investigation when State police investigation is already in progress.
Whether notice under Section 160 CrPC for seeking information regarding a published article should be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of EnforcementRelied on¶72
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 · Who else cites this
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶78
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 · Who else cites this
State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and othersRelied on¶52
State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571
Mahadeo and others v. Sovan Devi and othersRelied on¶107
Mahadeo and others v. Sovan Devi and others (2022) 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1118 · Who else cites this
Royden Harold Buthello and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and othersRelied on¶118
Royden Harold Buthello and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others (2023) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 204 · Who else cites this
Mani Shankar Pandey
Vijaya Pathak
Union of India
Enforcement Directorate
State of Chhattisgarh
Vinod Verma
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Radhakishan Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
