- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
All India Institute ... v. Union Of India And O...
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner sought criminal action against Dr. S.K. Kacker, former Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, for an alleged offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. After approaching various executive authorities without success, the petitioner filed a writ petition (CWP No. 1946 of 1996) before the Delhi High Court, requesting a mandamus directing the police—preferably the Central Bureau of Investigation—to investigate the allegations. The High Court declined to issue such a mandamus but ordered institution proceedings against Dr. Kacker. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India challenging the High Court’s refusal to compel a police investigation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to secure a direction compelling the police or the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence when the complainant has not first invoked the statutory mechanisms under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Whether the Delhi High Court erred in refusing to issue a mandamus directing investigation despite the petitioner’s allegations of inaction by the executive authorities.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner had submitted comprehensive information regarding Dr. Kacker’s alleged misconduct to the Director of AIIMS, the concerned Minister, and even the Prime Minister, yet no action was taken.
- In light of this official inaction, the petitioner was justified in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to secure an investigation.
- The High Court’s refusal to entertain the writ petition and grant investigative directions was therefore erroneous.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court analyzed the procedural framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), emphasizing the following statutory provisions:
- Section 154(1) CrPC: Mandates that every oral or written information about a cognizable offence be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of a police station and entered in the prescribed register.
- Sections 156 and 157 CrPC: Empower and guide the police to investigate cognizable offences upon receipt of such information.
- Section 173 CrPC: Requires completion of investigation without undue delay and submission of a final report (charge-sheet) to the Magistrate.
- Sections 190 and 200–203 CrPC: Provide an alternative remedy whereby an aggrieved complainant may approach the Magistrate directly if the police fail to act, enabling the Magistrate either to direct further investigation or to take cognizance based on evidence recorded.
The Court observed that the petitioner had not pursued either of the available statutory routes: (1) filing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 or (2) lodging a private complaint before a Magistrate under Sections 190 and 200. Because these remedies were bypassed, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling investigation was premature and legally unsustainable. Although the Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s reasoning differed, it agreed with the ultimate conclusion that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Holding and Implications
SLP DISMISSED.
Direct Consequence: The petitioner receives no writ relief but is expressly permitted to proceed under the CrPC mechanisms outlined by the Court. Broader Implication: The decision reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be invoked to compel criminal investigations when adequate statutory remedies under the CrPC remain unexhausted; no new substantive precedent was set.
Order
1. This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the Delhi High Court made on 14-5-1996 in CWP No. 1946 of 1996 directing institution proceedings against one, Dr S.K Kacker, former Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for the alleged cognizable offence punishable under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. The Division Bench refused to issue mandamus to the police to investigate into the allegations made against the said doctor.
2. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had laid all the necessary information before the Director as well as the Minister concerned and also the Prime Minister bringing to their notice all the offences committed by the doctor but no action in that behalf had been taken. As a result, the petitioner was constrained to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to take the steps as required under the law. The High Court, therefore, was not right in refusing to entertain the writ petition and giving directions in this behalf. We find that the stand taken by the petitioner is not correct in law.
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’) prescribes the procedure to investigate into the cognizable offences defined under the Code. In respect of cognizable offence, Chapter XII of the Code prescribes the procedure: information to the police and their powers to investigate the cognizable offence. Sub-section (1) of Section 154 envisages that:
“Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.”
On such information being received and reduced to writing, the officer in charge of the police station has been empowered under Section 156 to investigate into the cognizable cases. The procedure for investigation has been given under Section 157 of the Code, the details of which are not material. After conducting the investigation prescribed in the manner envisaged in Chapter XII, charge-sheet shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Section 173 envisages that:
“(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
(2) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government giving details therein. Upon receipt of the report, the Court under Section 190 is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Under Section 173(8), the investigating officer has power to make further investigation into the offence.”
4. When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused.
5. In this case, the petitioner had not adopted either of the procedure provided under the Code. As a consequence, without availing of the above procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI which is not required to investigate into all or every offence. The High Court, therefore, though for different reasons, was justified in refusing to grant the relief as sought for.
6. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. It, however, does not preclude the petitioner from following either of the procedures as indicated above, if so advised and deemed appropriate.
Alert