May - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
offence is disclosed, an investigation into the
offence must necessarily follow in the
interests of justice. If, however, no offence is
disclosed, an investigation cannot be
permitted, as any investigation, in the absence
of any offence being disclosed, will result in
unnecessary harassment to a party, whose
liberty and property may be put to jeopardy
for nothing. The liberty and property of any
individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the
Court zealously guards them and protects
them. An investigation is carried on for the
purpose of gathering necessary materials for
establishing and proving an offence which is
disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a
proper investigation in the interests of justice
becomes necessary to collect materials for
establishing the offence, and for bringing the
offender to book. In the absence of a proper
investigation in a case where an offence is
disclosed, the offender may succeed in
escaping from the consequence and the
offender may go unpunished to the detriment
of the cause of justice and the society at large.
Justice requires that a person who commits an
offence has to be brought to book and must be
punished for the same. If the Court interferes
with the proper investigation in a case where
an offence has been disclosed, the offence
will go unpunished to the serious detriment of
the welfare of the society and the cause of
justice suffers. It is on the basis of this
principle that the Court normally does not
interfere with the investigation of a case
where an offence has been disclosed……”
10. If on consideration of the relevant
materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence
is disclosed, the Court will normally not
interfere with the investigation into the
offence and will generally allow the
investigation into the offence to be completed
for collecting materials for proving the
offence. Without burdening the judgement
with series of decisions on the point, it would
be proper to make a passing reference to the
decision of the apex court reported in Talab
Haji Hussain V. Madhukar Purshottam
Mondekar –A.I.R. 1958 SC- 376; Madhavrao
Jiwaji Rao Scindia V. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre –A.I.R. 1988 SC-709;
State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal- A.I.R. 1992
SC – 604; State of Bihar V. P.P.Sharma-
1992SCC(Cri)-192; Meenakshi Bala V.
Sudhir Kumar- SCC(Cri)-1181 ; and State of
Maharashtra V. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and
Others –1996 SCC(Cri.)-150.
11. In the backdrop of the above decisions
and the firm legal position, which flows from
them, this Court would not sift the merits of
the defence taken by the petitioners or embark
upon an enquiry as to probability or reliability
or genuineness of the allegations made in the
F.I.R. The fact remains that prima facie, a
cognizable offence is disclosed from the
various averments made in the F.I.R. against
the petitioners.
12. Now it is the time to consider the
question whether the F.I.R. is, in fact,
actuated by mala fide. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the
President and Secretary of the Committee of
Management were on inimical terms and on
account of acrimonious relations, a false
charge has been foisted against the petitioners.
The allegation of mala fide cannot be
accepted mere for the asking. If from the
allegations made in the F.I.R. and the
supporting material, it is desclosed that a
cognizable offence is made out the conduct of
the first informant, which may have been
tainted with mala fide or due to lack of bona
fide would not at all be relevant. In State of
Maharashtra V. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri and
others (Supra), it was observed that if the
complaint which is made is correct and an
offence had been committed which will have
to be established in a court of law, it is of no
consequence that the complainant was a
person who was inimical or that he was guilty
of malafide. If the ingredients which establish
the commission of the offence of misconduct
exist then, the prosecution cannot fail merely
because there was an animus of the