D.Venkatasubramaniam & Ors vs M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari & Ors

2. It is well settled and this Court time and again, reiterated that the police authorities have the statutory right and duty to investigate into a cognizable offence under the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code'). This Court, on more than one occasion, decried uncalled for interference by the Courts into domain of investigation of crimes by police in discharge of their statutory functions. The principle has been succinctly stated way back in Emperor V. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad1 and the same has been repeatedly quoted with respect and approval. The Privy Council observed that "just as it is essential that every one accused of a crime should have free access to a Court of justice so that he may be duly, acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the 1 AIR 1945 PC 18 3 judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of enquiry".

7. Now, we shall revert to the facts of the case in order to consider whether the High Court properly applied the settled legal position to the facts of the case. 8 On 18th September, 2006, M/s IVR Prime Urban Developers Ltd. (`IVR' for short) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent herein wherein it was agreed upon by the respondent that he would facilitate the sale of about 600 acres of land situated at Sandavellor village of Kancheepuram District, Tamilnadu in favour of IVR for a valuable consideration of Rs.28 lakhs per acre. It was mutually agreed upon between the parties that IVR would retain an amount of Rs.2 lakh per acre towards security for timely performance of respondent's obligation under the MOU. The completion of the sale of the said land was to be done in two phases. The first phase for an extent of 450 acres was required to be completed before 31st November, 2006 and the second phase of remaining 150 acres on or before 28th February, 2007. The respondent agreed to arrange and facilitate registration of sale deeds of a minimum of 75 acres per week in favour of IVR. The respondent had also undertaken the obligation to collect and deliver all the relevant documents and records concerning 9 the said lands as required by IVR for registration of the sale deeds. It was further agreed upon that the retention amount accumulated to be forfeited by IVR on failure to comply with the terms of the MOU by the respondent. The MOU further provided that the same shall be cancelled by IVR if it was convinced that the respondent was unable to perform his part of the obligation under the MOU.

(emphasis is of ours)

(emphasis is of ours)

23. The High Court in the present case, without realizing the consequences, issued directions in a casual and mechanical manner without hearing the appellants. The impugned order is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score.

26. Before parting with the case, we may, however, observe that the observations made in this order and the order passed by the High Court shall have no bearing whatsoever on the pending proceedings which shall go on in accordance with law.

27. For the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment of the High Court. Leave granted. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside.