RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1986-2-8
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 20,1986

RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. - (1.) The jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency to investigate ought not to be lightly interfered with and Writ Court would not normally do so unless however it could be established that the initiation of the proceeding by the lodgment of the First Information Report does not disclose an offence or the investigation is continued for purpose other than legal and is continued malafide.
(2.) The law in that regard is now well-settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar reported in AIR 1982 SC 949. In the above-noted decisions the Supreme Court observed : "The position which emerges from this decision ??????????.. is that the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Section 157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unferrered discretion to commence investigation under Section 157 of the Code. Their right of enquiry this condition by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot reasonably have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., Prima facie disclosed the commission such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on and the Rule in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed will apply. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offence. On the other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of information as led or received."
(3.) The Supreme Court further observed : "There is no such thing like unfettered discretion in the realm of powers defined by Statutes and indeed unlimited discretion in that sphere can become a ruthless destroyer of personal freedom. The power to investigate into cognizable offence must, therefore, be exercised strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Court.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.