Case: Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State Of Meghalaya

2. Facts which led to the issuance of the aforesaid direction, briefly, are the following : A Mumbai based company claimed ownership of certain land situated at a commercially strategic location in the city of Mumbai. Another company the headquarters of which is at Shillong in Meghalaya, entered into some transaction with the Mumbai Company in respect of the said land. Further details of the disputes are not very necessary for this appeal except stating from the stage of commencement of the criminal proceedings. An FIR was lodged by the Shillong company with the Shillong police alleging that the Mumbai Company has cheated Shillong Company to the tune of Rupees nine crores. Sometime after lodgement of the said FIR the Shillong Company observed that the police was not moving ahead with the investigation as fast or as distant as the company expected. Hence the Shillong Company filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Guwahati for appropriatesingle judge of the High Court passed a direction the extract of which reads thusthe circumstances I direct that in case the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount which would be required to undertake the investigation and for the visit of the senior police officers to Bombay in connection with the investigation work the State Government shall allow them to go so and direct the investigating team to proceed in right earnest and speedily.It is further directed that the amount that would be required to undertake the investigation will be intimated to the petitioner within one week and the petitioner shall make the deposit of the amount within three days thereafter.As the above direction was obviously unpalatable to the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, he and the Home Secretary of the State filed an appeal along with the State before a Division Bench of the High Court challenging the said direction issued by the Single Judge. According to the State, the investigation has to be conducted in Mumbai by the Maharashtra police and hence the direction issued by the Single Judge is unworkable. But the said contention was repelled by the Division Bench. Regarding the direction issued by the Single Judge to get funds from the aggrieved complainant, the Division Bench did not dilate much. Nevertheless, learned judges did not interfere with the said direction and observed that "in any case the learned single Judge has passed a just and proper order in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.In this context we may point out that appellant was not brought into the array even at the above stage. He was kept in dark about all what happened at Shillong as the appellant was doing his business confining to the radius of Mumbai. But when he was called by the police in connection with the FIR lodged at Shillong, he learned about the facts which preceded till then. Hence, he moved the High Court of Bombay in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the FIR and the further proceedings taken thereon. But a Division Bench of Bombay High Court expressed helplessness in the matter and dismissed the Writ Petition on the sole ground that the High Court of Bombay has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to deal with an FIR registered at Shillong.5. When the said Writ Petition was dismissed, the appellant rushed to this Court with two Special Leave Petitions, one in challenge of the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court which dismissed his Writ Petition for want of territorial jurisdiction and the other in challenge of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court as per which the Shillong Police is directed to collect funds from the respondent company.

Court's reasoning:
16. The above discussion was made for emphasising the need for official investigation to be totally extricated from any extraneous influence. The police investigation should necessarily be with the fund supplied by the State. It may be possible for a rich complainant to supply any amount of fund to the police for conducting investigation into his complaint. But a poor man cannot afford to supply any financial assistance to the police. It is an acknowledged reality that he who pays the piper calls the tune. So he would call the shots. Its corollary is that somebody who incurs the cost of anything would normally secure its control also. In our constitutional scheme, the police and other statutory investigating agency cannot be allowed to be hackneyed by those who can afford it. All complaints shall be investigated with equal alacrity and with equal fairness irrespective of the financial capacity of the person lodging the complaint.17. Financial crunch of any State treasury is no justification for allowing a private party to supply funds to the police for conducting such investigation. Augmentation of the fiscal resources of the State for meeting the expenses needed for such investigations is the look out of the executive. Failure to do it is no premise for directing a complainant to supply funds to the investigating officer. Such funding by interested private parties would vitiate the investigation contemplated in the Code. A vitiated investigation is the precursor for miscarriage of criminal justice. Hence any attempt, to create a precedent permitting private parties to supply financial assistance to the police for conducting investigation, should be nipped in the bud itself. No such precedent can secure judicial imprimatur.