PRASANT GAUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fate of this case is in the throes of uncertainty buffeted by repeated reference for determination of certain questions from Bench to Bench, of this court.

(2.) DISSENTING from the view of the division Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Application No. 13691 of 1986, Puttan Singh v. State of U. P. decided on 8-1-87. wherein it was held that the power of the Police to investigate into the case registered on the basis of a First Information Report in cognizable offences in unfettered and cannot be interfered with by the court in exercise of its inherent powers u/Sec. 482 CrPC. I had made a request for reference and the matter was referred for reconsideration of the questions by a larger bench consisting of five Judges by my reference dated 28-5-87 in the aforesaid case, for answering of certain issues to the following effect. (1) Whether u/Sec. 482 CrPC, the High Court has inherent powers to interfere with the investigation by the Police ? (2) Whether the High Court has powers to stay arrest during investigation ? (3) Whether the decision reported in 1987 AWG 404 lays down a correct proposition of law ? The answer to question no. (1) by the Full Bench comprising five Judges was as under :

(3.) IN the light of the above discussion, a scrutiny of the phraseology of section 482 CrPC is also rendered imperative. Section 482 CrPC consists of three different phrases (1) to give effect to any order under the code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court ; and (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. IN the decision rendered by this Court in the Bench consisting of seven judges, scope of these three phrases has not been dwelt upon ana delineated and hence the conclusion of the Bench of seven judges sans this exercise of traversing upon the scope of section 482 CrPC cannot be held to be justifiable by any stretch of imagination, that this power cannot be invoked at a pre-charge sheet stage. IN the above observation, I am fortified by a decision reported in AIR i985 SC 218 M/s. Amar Nath Om Prakash, Justice O. Chinnappa Reedy's judgment. The relevant portion in the aforesaid judgment which 1 have extracted is being quoted below.