Harkishan and ors. Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police and ors.

.....of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - it is well settled law that:order1. heard petitioner's counsel and the learned a.g.a.2. f.i.r. in question, which we have perused, discloses commission of cognizable offence. in such a situation police has every authority to make investigation for finding out real offenders. it is submitted by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioners are not named in the f.i.r. and their complicity has been stated before the police by co-accused naresh-nephew of the petitioners when he was arrested by the police. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that until any other piece of evidence is collected against the petitioners the investigating officer should be directed not to arrest them. it is well settled law that: court should not interfere during investigation nor should assume authority on the powers of the investigating officer. a statutory right has been conferred on the police under sections 154 and 156, cr.p.c. to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime. it would be an unfortunate result if it has to be held that courts should intervene with those statutory rights. the functions of the police and the judiciary are complimentary arid not over lapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own functions, always of course subject to the right of the court to interfere in an appropriate case. in a case where cognizable offence is disclosed the court's function begins when a charge-sheet is filed and not before it. there is nothing on record to indicate that the investigating officer is not functioning in an honest manner.3. we, thus find no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.