Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Veedhi Nookaratnam vs The Union Of India on 4 January, 2023
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
***
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
BETWEEN:
# 1. Veedhi Nookaratnam, W/o. Satyanaratna, R/o. Sriram Bageecha
Enclave Apartment, Near Kulayi Cheruvu, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh.
2. Veedhi Satyanaratana, S/o. Satyam, R/o. Sriram Bageecha
Enclave Apartment, Near Kulayi Cheruvu, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh.
....Petitioners
AND
$ 1. Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Nirman
Bhawan, Near Undyog Bhavan, Metro Station, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi, Delhi- 110011.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home
Dept) Secretariat Buildings, at Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.
3. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, A.P.-522502.
4. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Plot No.5-B, 6th
Floor, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg,
New Delhi - 110 003.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, 1-83-
21/4, MVP Double Road, Sector 8, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh - 530017.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, A.P.,
7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District.
8. The Station House Officer, Sarpavaram Police Station, A.P.
... Respondents
Date of Judgment pronounced on : 04.01.2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No
May be allowed to see the judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes/No
to Law Reporters/Journals:
3. Whether The Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : Yes/No
Of the Judgment?
2 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
+ W.P.No.24362 of 2022
% Dated:04.01.2023
BETWEEN:
# 1. Veedhi Nookaratnam, W/o. Satyanaratna, R/o. Sriram Bageecha
Enclave Apartment, Near Kulayi Cheruvu, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh.
2. Veedhi Satyanaratana, S/o. Satyam, R/o. Sriram Bageecha
Enclave Apartment, Near Kulayi Cheruvu, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada,
Andhra Pradesh.
....Petitioners
AND
$ 1. Union of India rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Nirman
Bhawan, Near Undyog Bhavan, Metro Station, Maulana Azad Road,
New Delhi, Delhi- 110011.
2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home
Dept) Secretariat Buildings, at Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.
3. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, A.P.-522502.
4. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Plot No.5-B, 6th
Floor, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Marg,
New Delhi - 110 003.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, 1-83-
21/4, MVP Double Road, Sector 8, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh - 530017.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada District, A.P.,
7. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District.
8. The Station House Officer, Sarpavaram Police Station, A.P.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Jada Sravan Kumar
^Counsel for Respondents 2, 3, 6 to 8 : G.P. for Home
3 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
<GIST :
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. 1988 (12) All Cri 716
2. 2010 (2) SCC 200
3. 1992 (1) SCC 397
4. 2010 (3) ALT 200
5. 1994 SCC SUPL (1) 143
6. (2020) 14 SCC 12
7. (2008) 2 SCC 409
8. (2013) 12 SCC 480
9. 2022 SCC Online SC 884
10. 2012 SCC OnLine All 537
11. 2020 SCC OnLine Del 740
12. (2010) 3 SCC 571
13. (2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC
930
14. (2014) 8 SCC 768 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 116 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 450
15. (2002) 5 SCC 521 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 775 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC
580
16. (2008) 3 SCC 542 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 9 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 484
4 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
ORDER:
The son of the petitioners had passed away, in suspicious
circumstances, on 20.05.2022. Upon a complaint made in this regard by
the 1st petitioner, Crime No.195 of 2022 was registered on 20.05.2022 in
Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, under Section 174
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the provision of law was altered to offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section
3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 (for short 'the Act').
2. The sole accused in the case was arrested on 23.05.2022
and has remained in judicial custody since then. The Investigating Officer
has filed a charge sheet before the Special Court for SCs and STs
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act cum X Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Rajamahendravaram on 22.08.2022, in which the accused has been
accused of offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)
and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Act. About 56 witnesses have been listed along
with the charge sheet. It is also stated in the charge sheet that C.C. TV
footage of the house of the accused after the commission of offence and
the CC footage near the scene of offence prior to the commission of
offence is to be examined to ascertain the presence and involvement of
the other accused, if any, and that the other accused could be charged by
5 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
way of an additional charge sheet if reliable evidence, either technical or
material, regarding the involvement of other persons comes out in the
case. This charge sheet is said to have been returned with some
objections and steps are being taken to resubmit the charge sheet.
3. Even while the investigation was going on in the above case,
the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 08.06.2022, to the
authorities to transfer the investigation to an independent investigating
agency like C.B.I. The petitioners contend that this representation has
been ignored by the State machinery and no response has been given in
relation to this representation. The petitioners are now before this Court,
seeking a direction from this Court to transfer the investigation of the
above case to an independent investigating agency like C.B.I.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the accused is a
member of the Legislative Council and is a highly influential person, who is
ensuring that the police do not conduct a proper enquiry and are trying to
exonerate other persons who were involved in the homicide of their son.
The petitioners would point out to various mistakes, which are occurring in
the manner in which the investigation is being carried out, to contend that
the said mistakes are deliberate mistakes being done to help the accused.
5. The version of the petitioners, about the manner in which
their son (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had passed away, is
as follows:
6 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
a) The deceased was earlier working as a driver of the accused, in
the course of his employment, had also taken a loan of Rs.50,000/-, for
his marriage expenses, from the accused and had repaid an amount of
Rs.30,000/-. After some time, he had left the employment of the accused
without repaying the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/-
b) On the intervening night of 19.05.2022 and 20.05.2022 one Sri
A. Manikanta is said to have came on his motor cycle and picked up the
deceased at 7.30 p.m.
c) Later, the accused is said to have contacted the father of the
deceased, (the 2nd petitioner herein) at around 8.30 p.m., and enquired
about the whereabouts of the deceased and demanded repayment of the
unpaid loan amount of Rs.20,000/- and threatened serious consequences,
if the money was not paid.
d) At about 0.52 a.m., the accused contacted the father of the
deceased saying that the deceased was involved in an accident with a
motor cycle and that he was going to the accident site.
e) The younger brother of the deceased is said to have
immediately caused enquiries to know if any accident had taken place or
not and came to know that no such accident had occurred.
f) However, the accused contacted the younger brother of the
deceased and asked him to come to a hospital. The younger brother,
when he arrived at the hospital, had found the deceased, in the rear seat
of a car, in an unconscious state, opposite to the hospital. The duty
7 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
Doctor, upon examination of the deceased, had confirmed the death of
the deceased.
g) Thereafter, the accused brought the dead body of the
deceased to the apartment complex of the deceased and informed the
parents and relatives of the deceased that the deceased had passed away
in a road accident and advised them to cremate the body by taking the
deceased to their native village for which he offered an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/-.
h) When the petitioners and others questioned the accused in this
regard, there was a verbal argument and the accused left the place
threatening them with severe consequences.
i) On noticing the injuries on the dead body of the deceased, the
petitioners and his relatives, suspecting that the injuries were not received
through an accident, had filed a complaint before the Sarpavaram Police
Station and the same was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., despite
the petitioners and the relatives stating that the deceased had not passed
away in a road accident.
j) It was only after the postmortem report had made it clear that
the death was not on account of any road accident that the accused was
taken into custody on 23.05.2022.
6. The petitioners further contend that the investigation in the
case was deliberately botched up by the State police to help the accused.
8 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
7. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit the details of the deliberate mistakes, committed
in the investigation, in the following manner:
a) The police had initially registered the case under Section 174
Cr.P.C., despite the presence of numerous injuries and wounds on
the body of the deceased.
b) The accused had about 12 pending criminal cases against him and
recommendations were made by the Assistant Superintendent of
Police, Rampachodawaram, for registration of a rowdy sheet
against the accused. Despite this, the investigating officer, in the
remand report, recorded that there was no past criminal record
against the accused. This was done to facilitate the accused to get
bail.
c) The accused was remanded to custody on 23.05.2022 for a period
of 15 days till 06.06.2022. The time period within which police
custody, of the accused, could have been obtained, under Section
167 Cr.P.C., was up to 06.06.2022. The investigating officer, after
keeping quiet, had filed Crl.M.P.No.878 of 2022 on 06.06.2022 for
police custody of the accused. This petition was dismissed by the
Magistrate on the ground that the time period for seeking police
custody had expired. The delay in filing the application for police
custody was deliberately done to help the accused.
9 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
d) The version put out by the accused was that there was an
altercation between him and the deceased in relation to non-
payment of the loan amount of Rs.20,000/- due to which he had
pushed the deceased resulting in the deceased losing his balance
and falling on a hard piece of concrete due to which the deceased
had passed away. The investigating officer did not take any steps
to verify the alleged scene of offence or take any samples of the
mud or the cement in the place where the deceased is said to have
fallen and injured his head. The said gap in the investigation was
deliberate and to help the accused.
e) The pleadings in the counter affidavit filed before this Court as well
as the statements in the charge sheet show that the police admit
and acknowledge the presence of various other persons at the
scene of offence as well as at the house of the accused before and
after the incident had occurred. However, no investigation has been
carried out in relation to the involvement of the other persons and
no other person has been named either in the charge sheet or in
the course of investigation. The statement of the investigating
officer in the charge sheet, that other persons could also be
arrayed as accused after further investigation, is only a statement
made to mislead the Court and there would be no attempt of any
nature to include, as accused, any of the other persons, who were
involved in the death of the deceased.
10 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
f) It is the version of the accused that he had dragged the body of
the deceased from the place of offence to another place for a
distance of about 1 k.m., and the same is highly improbable in view
of the physique of the accused. However, this aspect has been
deliberately ignored by the investigating officer.
8. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
would also submit that the above defects in the investigation clearly make
out a case of willful negligence and willful misdirection of the investigation
to help the accused and other persons who were involved in the crime. He
submits that the investigation is being carried out in this manner only on
account of the fact that the accused is a prominent politician, and a
Member of the Legislative Council, who has close proximity to the police
authorities. He submits that there is no possibility of an impartial and
proper investigation by the State police. He submits that a proper
investigation is possible only if the investigation is entrusted to a
professionally independent body such as C.B.I. He relies upon the
following judgements:
1. Kashmere Devi vs. Delhi Administration1.
2. Rubabhuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.2
3. Gudalure M. J. Cherian vs. Union of India3
4. Koganti Lakshmi vs. State Government of Andhra Pradesh
and Ors.,4
1988 (12) All CriR 716
2010 (2) SCC 200
1992 (1) SCC 397
2010 (3) ALT 200
11 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
5. Ramesh Kumari vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2006 (2) SCC 677
6. R. S. Sodhi, Advocate vs State of U.P.,5
to contend that the Courts, in similar circumstances, had held that the
High Court has power of entrusting the investigation to a separate
authority, at any stage of investigation, and on similar facts various Courts
have transferred the investigation to the C.B.I., from the State police.
9. The learned Government Pleader for Home would submit
that the State police has no interest in retaining the case or in conducting
investigation in the case. However, any transfer of investigation would be
a reflection on the State police due to which the State police are opposing
the transfer of investigation to the C.B.I. The learned Government Pleader
for Home relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India6, would contend that
transfer of investigation, is a serious matter, which has to be done only in
extreme cases and the courts should deal with such issues with great
circumspection and caution. He would submit that it is only where the
court comes to a conclusion that there can be no independent and
impartial enquiry, that the Court would intervene in the matter and
transfer the investigation to the C.B.I. He would further submit that the
investigation has been going on in a fairly regular manner and small
mistakes in the course of such investigation cannot be a ground to doubt
1994 SCC SUPL (1) 143
(2020) 14 SCC 12
12 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
the integrity of the investigation process and to transfer the case to C.B.I.
He relies upon the following judgements:
1. Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,7
2. K.V. Rajendran vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID8
3. Rhea Chakraborty vs State of Bihar [Transfer Petition (CRL)
No.225 of 2020]
4. Himanshu Kumar and Ors., vs State of Chhattisgarh and
Ors.,9
5. Mrs. Rita Bahuguna Joshi vs. State of U.P.,10 [Allahabad
High Court]
6. Deepali Aggarwal vs State of GNCT11 [Delhi High Court]
7. State of West Bengal vs. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights,12
8. Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India,
10. The learned Government Pleader for Home would also point
out that in the judgments cited by Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, the Courts were
dealing with situations where the police personnel themselves were the
accused in the investigation and there was a doubt as to the reliability of
the investigation by the State police themselves. He would submit that in
the present case no such situation arises. He would further submit that in
the present case, the accused, even according to the petitioners, is one of
the main reasons for the demise of their son. The learned Government
Pleader for Home would submit that once the accused himself has been
(2008) 2 SCC 409
(2013) 12 SCC 480
2022 SCC Online SC 884
2012 SCC OnLine All 537
2020 SCC OnLine Del 740
(2010) 3 SCC 571
13 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
arrayed as the sole/main accused, the question of shielding the main
culprit does not arise. He would further submit that the investigation is
being done in a transparent manner with all information sought by the
petitioners being given to them. He points to the fact that the entire
documentation filed by the petitioners in this writ petition was given by
the police themselves.
11. The learned government pleader would further submit that
the investigating officer is awaiting the report of the forensic science lab in
relation to the CC TV footage to determine the identities of the persons
who were there along with the accused. He submits that the CC TV
footage requires a thorough vetting by the forensic science lab, as the
footage in this case, was not clear, and the assistance of the forensic
science lab was sought for the purpose of identifying the persons in the
CC TV footage.
Consideration of the Court:
12. Before considering the question as to whether the
investigation has to be transferred to the CBI, it is necessary to consider
the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that this court has power to transfer
investigation of a crime to the CBI, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., at
page 416:
31. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation
by CBI vide CBI v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 3 SCC 333 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 524] but this Court or the High Court has
14 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation
by CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare
and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with
a large number of cases and would find it impossible to
properly investigate all of them.
13. The further guidelines for such transfer were indicated in the
following judgements:
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat13 at page 272
45. Not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of
constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of
the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be
fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum
requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot
be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and
biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would
ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere.
In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that
independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh
investigation.
Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India14, at page 781
9. It is unnecessary to multiply decisions on the subject,
for this Court has exercised the power to transfer
investigation from the State Police to CBI in cases where
such transfer is considered necessary to discover the truth
and to meet the ends of justice or because of the complexity
of the issues arising for examination or where the case
involves national or international ramifications or where
people holding high positions of power and influence or
(2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 930
(2014) 8 SCC 768 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 116 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 450
15 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
political clout are involved. What is important is that while
the power to transfer is exercised sparingly and with utmost
care and circumspection this Court has more often than not
directed transfer of cases where the fact situations so
demand.
Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, at page 216
60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made
hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr
Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of
Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the court
in the criminal proceeding it was not open for this Court or
even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to
be handed over to CBI or to any independent agency.
Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an appropriate
case when the court feels that the investigation by the police
authorities is not in the proper direction and in order to do
complete justice in the case and as the high police officials
are involved in the said crime, it was always open to the
court to hand over the investigation to the independent
agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after the charge-
sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered, in an
appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an
independent agency like CBI.
14. Another line of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme court
sounded a note of caution, in the exercise of discretion, by this court, in
the following manner:
Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services15, U.P. v. Sahngoo
Ram Arya, at page 524
(2002) 5 SCC 521 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 775 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 580
16 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
5. While none can dispute the power of the High Court
under Article 226 to direct an inquiry by CBI, the said power
can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient
material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a
need for such inquiry. It is not sufficient to have such
material in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need
for the High Court on consideration of such pleadings to
come to the conclusion that the material before it is
sufficient to direct such an inquiry by CBI. This is a
requirement which is clearly deducible from the judgment of
this Court in the case of Common Cause [(1999) 6 SCC 667 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 1196] . This Court in the said judgment at
paragraph 174 of the Report has held thus : (SCC p. 750,
para 174)
"174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to
investigate 'any other offence' is wholly erroneous and
cannot be sustained. Obviously, direction for investigation
can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have
been committed or a person's involvement is prima facie
established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether
any person has committed an offence or not cannot be
legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the
concept and philosophy of 'LIFE' and 'LIBERTY' guaranteed to
a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction
is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in
which the concept of 'LIFE' has been explained in a manner
which has infused 'LIFE' into the letters of Article 21."
6. It is seen from the above decision of this Court that
the right to life under Article 21 includes the right of a
person to live without being hounded by the police or CBI to
find out whether he has committed any offence or is living
as a law-abiding citizen. Therefore, it is clear that a decision
to direct an inquiry by CBI against a person can only be
done if the High Court after considering the material on
17 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
record comes to a conclusion that such material does
disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI
or any other similar agency, and the same cannot be done
as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes
some such allegations. In the instant case, we see that the
High Court without coming to a definite conclusion that
there is a prima facie case established to direct an inquiry
has proceeded on the basis of "ifs" and "buts" and thought it
appropriate that the inquiry should be made by CBI. With
respect, we think that this is not what is required by the law
as laid down by this Court in the case of Common
Cause [(1999) 6 SCC 667 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1196] .
15. This principle has been affirmed by a constitution bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme court, in the following manner:
State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, at page 602:
71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services,
U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya [(2002) 5 SCC 521 : 2002 SCC
(L&S) 775] this Court had said that an order directing an
enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court,
after considering the material on record, comes to a
conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie
case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar
agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala16, at page 560
40. In our view, the High Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction cannot change the investigating officer in the
midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to
(2008) 3 SCC 542 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 9 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 484
18 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more
particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions
addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot
be converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in
motion. Neither are the accused nor the complainant or
informant entitled to choose their own investigating agency to
investigate a crime in which they may be interested.
41. It is altogether a different matter that the High Court
in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India can always issue appropriate directions at the
instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced
that the power of investigation has been exercised by an
investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised
in the rarest of the rare case where a clear case of abuse of
power and non-compliance with the provisions falling under
Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the
interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the
High Court cannot direct the police as to how the
investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the
observance of process as provided for in the Code.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after a review of the law had
summed up the guidelines in, Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of
India, at page 41, in the following manner:
42. The transfer of an investigation to CBI is not a
matter of routine. The precedents of this Court emphasise
that this is an "extraordinary power" to be used "sparingly"
and "in exceptional circumstances". Speaking for a
Constitution Bench in State of W.B. v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights [State of W.B. v. Committee
for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 :
19 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401] ("CPDR, West Bengal"), D.K. Jain, J.
observed : (SCC p. 602, para 70)
"70. ... despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and
226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the courts
must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the
exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude
of the power under the said articles requires great caution in
its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to
CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although
no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether
or not such power should be exercised but time and again it
has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed
as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled
some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary
power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in
exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or
where the incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for
doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.
Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of
cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to
properly investigate even serious cases and in the process
lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory
investigations."
(emphasis supplied)
43. This principle has been reiterated in K.V.
Rajendran v. CBCID [K.V. Rajendran v. CBCID, (2013) 12
SCC 480 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] . Dr B.S. Chauhan, J.
speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court held : (SCC
p. 485, para 13)
"13. ... This Court has time and again dealt with the
issue under what circumstances the investigation can be
transferred from the State investigating agency to any other
20 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held
that the power of transferring such investigation must be in
rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it
necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to
instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation
by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for
having "a fair, honest and complete investigation", and
particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence
in the impartial working of the State agencies."
44. Elaborating on this principle, this Court observed :
(K.V. Rajendran case [K.V. Rajendran v. CBCID, (2013) 12
SCC 480 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] , SCC p. 487, para 17)
"17. ... the Court could exercise its constitutional powers
for transferring an investigation from the State investigating
agency to any other independent investigating agency like
CBI only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high
officials of State authorities are involved, or the accusation
itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency
thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and
further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil
confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is
prima facie found to be tainted/biased."
The Court reiterated that an investigation may be
transferred to CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases". One
factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is
"imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial
working of the State agencies". This observation must be
read with the observations by the Constitution Bench
in CPDR [State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
401] , that mere allegations against the police do not
constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation.
46. The principle of law that emerges from the
precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an
21 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
investigation must be used "sparingly" and only "in
exceptional circumstances". In assessing the plea urged by
the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to
CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this
Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power. It is
necessary to address the grounds on which the petitioner
seeks a transfer of the investigation. The grounds urged for
transfer are:
17. The principles that can be extracted from the aforesaid
guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are -
a) This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, has the power to transfer investigation of any
Crime from a State agency to another independent agency like the
C.B.I.
b) This power is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
circumstances.
c) The question of whether such exceptional circumstances exist or
not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of
each case.
18. Some of the exceptional circumstances, enumerated in the
aforesaid judgments are -
a) Involvement of higher officials of the State in the crime under
investigation;
b) Accusation against top officials of the investigation agency itself;
22 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
c) The facts show that transfer of a case is necessary to ensure
credibility and instill confidence in the investigation;
d) Whether the incident may have national and international
ramifications.
19. The present case would have to be considered on the basis
of the above guidelines which are not exhaustive and keeping in mind the
caution placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench
Judgment (State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights) that this extraordinary power must be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations.
20. In the present case, the sole accused is a member of the
Legislative Council. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the State
police would not take any steps against such a person on account of his
being a public representative. The petitioners, in support of this
apprehension, have also sought to make out a case of deliberate
mishandling of investigation, by citing various incidents which raise such
doubts.
21. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand,
submits that the investigation has been done in a transparent manner and
the Member of the Legislative Council himself has been arrayed as the
sole accused in the case. He submits that in such circumstances, the
question of shielding the said public representative does not arise. He
would further submit that the entire thrust of the argument of the
23 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
petitioners is that other persons, who were also involved in the crime, are
not being arrayed as accused. He submits that the case of the petitioners
is that the persons, who were found to be present at the scene of offence
and at the house of the sole accused, at the relevant point of time in the
C.C TV footage, are not being included as accused even though they are
involved in the crime. The learned Government Pleader contends that the
charge sheet filed by the investigating officer specifically states that there
is every possibility of other persons being involved in the crime and the
report of the forensic science lab on the CC TV footage is awaited, any
further investigation and steps can be taken against the other persons. In
such situation, the apprehension and allegation of the petitioners that
certain persons are being shielded, is misplaced.
22. The petitioners have set out their version of the events of
19/20.05.2022 in the writ affidavit. A perusal of the charge sheet shows
that the facts alleged in the charge sheet essentially mirror the version of
the petitioners in the writ petition. The charge sheet also states that the
role of other persons is still being probed and further investigation would
be taken up after the presence of other persons is certified by the forensic
science lab. In such a situation, the conditions necessary for ordering
transfer of investigation to an independent agency like C.B.I., do not
appear to be made out.
23. The only fact, which does raise a certain amount of doubt, is
the negligence/delay in filing a complaint for police custody of the sole
24 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
accused. A proper explanation for the said delay has not been made out
before this Court. However, a revision appears to have been filed before
this Court against the order of dismissal of the application for police
remand of the accused, passed by the Magistrate. This delay, by itself,
would not be sufficient for this Court to hold that the exceptional
circumstances set out above have been made out, unless there is
something more, justifying the order of transfer of investigation to the
C.B.I. The other contentions raised by the petitioners do not appear to
make out such exceptional circumstances.
24. One of the prime requirements of any criminal investigation
is the credibility of such investigation and the confidence it evokes in the
stake holders of the said investigation. To ensure that, such confidence is
further retained, this writ petition is being disposed of with the following
directions:
1. The investigating officer shall take immediate steps to obtain the
forensic science lab reports in relation to C.C TV footage, at the
earliest, and preferably within 15 days from the date of this
order.
2. The investigating officer, upon identification of the
persons/person in the CC TV footage, shall conduct a thorough
investigation into the reasons for the presence of such persons
and their role, if any, in the commission of offence or in the
cover up of the said offence.
25 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
3. The investigating officer, upon finding any incriminating material
or record in this regard shall include all such persons against
whom such incriminating material is obtained as accused in the
case and file a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate.
4. This direction is being given, as the matter is still pending before
the Magistrate for committal to a Court of Sessions. In the event
of the investigation being completed after the committal of the
case to the Court of Sessions, the investigating officer shall file
the supplementary charge sheet before the Court of Sessions
itself.
5. This process of further investigation, in relation to any further
material against the sole accused and in relation to the
involvement of other persons in this crime, shall be completed
expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months
from the date of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
4th January, 2023
Js.
26 RRR,J
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.24362 of 2022
4th January, 2023
Js.
