R.Uma Maheshwari Pradheep vs The Director,

2026:MHC:3530
W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.08.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026
and
W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
and
W.P.M.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.996, 997 and 1023 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15892 and 15984 of 2026
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4127 of 2026:-
R.Uma Maheshwari Pradheep ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation (New Delhi),
CBI Delhi HQ,
Plot No.5-B, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
2.Crime Branch – Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID),
No.220, Pantheaon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani,
represented by its Joint Commissioner/Fit Person,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple,
Palani – 624 601, Dindigul District.
1/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
4.Muruganantham ... Respondents
(R3 and R4 were impleaded vide order of this Court, dated 12.08.2026)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent
to transfer the investigation in F.I.R.No.151 of 2026 together with the
F.I.R., case diary, registration records, electronic records and all
connected materials to the first respondent; and consequently, to direct
the first respondent to conduct a fair, independent, comprehensive and
expeditious investigation into the fraudulent registration of the subject
property, including the role of all private persons, public servants,
supervisory officers, senior bureaucrats, political functionaries and all
other persons found involved, the entrustment of additional charge, the
processing and completion of the registration, the source and movement
of funds, the ultimate beneficiaries of the transaction and the entire chain
of official and unofficial communications and monitor the investigation
and to complete the investigation within a time frame fixed by this Court
without permitting any person, irrespective of office, rank or position to
remain outside the scope of investigation.
For Petitioner :Mr.J.Ravindran
Senior Counsel for Ms.M.Sneha
For R1 :Mr.M.Karunanithi
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
For R2 :Mr.John Sathyan
State Public Prosecutor
2/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
assisted by Mr.D.Venkatesh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R3 and R4 :Mr.R.Murali
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4270 of 2026:-
Annapoorani Sivakumar,
Trustee of Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swami
Swami Temple, Palani,
No.129, SRS Illam, Karuppannan Street,
Thummichampatty, Oddanchatram, Dindigul,
Tamil Nadu – 624 619. ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation (New Delhi),
CBI Delhi HQ,
Plot No.5-B, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003.
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
Crime Branch – Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID),
No.220, Pantheaon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Inspector of Police,
J-2, Adivaram Police Station,
Adivaram, Palani – 624 601.
4.Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani,
represented by its Joint Commissioner/Fit Person,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple,
Palani – 624 601, Dindigul District.
5.Muruganantham ... Respondents
(R4 and R5 were impleadeed vide order of this Court, dated 12.08.2026)
3/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent
to transfer and hand over the investigation in F.I.R.No.151 of 2026
together with the original complaint, F.I.R., case diary, statements,
material objects, registration records, electronic and digital records,
financial records, departmental files and all other connected materials, to
st
the 1 respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation and consequently, to
st
direct the 1 respondent to conduct a fair, independent, comprehensive
and expeditious investigation into the fraudulent preparation,
presentation and registration of Document No.1446 of 2026 relating to
the property of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamigal Maddam, Palani,
including the role of all private persons, public servants, supervisory
authorities, intermediaries, financiers, beneficiaries and other influential
persons found involved; the issuance and processing of the token on
03.07.2026; the leave and absence of the regular officials; the selection
and entrustment of additional charge to Justin Manikandan; the
processing and completion of registration on 06.07.2026; the suppression
or disregard of the officials communication dated 02.07.2026; the source,
movement and ultimate destination of the purported sale consideration
and all connected financial transactions; and the complete chain of
official, electronic, telephonic and other communications preceding and
following the registration, within a time frame fixed by this Court under
the monitoring of this Court by way of periodical status reports.
4/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
For Petitioner :Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.Veera Associates
For R1 :Mr.M.Karunanithi
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
For R2 and R3 :Mr.John Sathyan
State Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.D.Venkatesh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
For R4 and R5 :Mr.R.Murali
W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026:-
K.S.N.Venugopalu Senapathi ... Petitioner
vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by the Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
th
6 Floor, Loadhi Road, Plot No.5-B,
Jawaharlal Road, CGO Complex,
New Delhi.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
4.The Additional Director General of Police,
Crime Branch-CID, Chennai.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Palani Adivaram PS,
Palani, Dindigul District.
5/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
7.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID-South,
Dindigul, Dindigul District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus,
a)to transfer the investigation relating to the Cr.No.151 of 2026 on
th
the file of the 6 respondent Police, subsequently, transferred and re-
th
registered as Cr.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the 7 respondent Police to
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), for conducting a fair, impartial,
independent, effective and expeditious investigation in accordance with
law; and
b)to appointment a retired Judge of the Madras High Court to
monitor the present investigation by directing the investigation agency
periodically place the process of investigation before the learned Retired
Judge and to act accordance with such further direction as may be issued
by this Court.
For Petitioner :Mr.E.Mareeskumar
For R1 :Mr.M.Karunanithi
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI
For R2 :Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.M.P.Senthil
Government Pleader
For R3 to R7 :Mr.John Sathyan
State Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.D.Venkatesh
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
*
6/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. )
All the Writ Petitions have been filed primarily seeking transfer of
investigation of an FIR in Cr.No.151 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector
of Police, Palani Adivaram Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District,
which was subsequently transferred and re-registered as Cr.No.2 of 2026
on the file of the Inspector of Police, CB-CID South, Dindigul, to the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
2.W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026 had been filed by
K.S.N.Venugopalu Senapathi, who had initially described himself as ex-
MLA, but later, that particular designation or description or probably
even a title had been erased by a whitener by himself or by the Counsel,
in the nature of a public interest litigation under Article 226 of
Constitution of India seeking the same relief. The petitioner also claims
that alternatively, the Court should appoint a retired Judge of this Court
to monitor the investigation.
7/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
3.The next Writ Petition is W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4127 of 2026, which
had been filed by R.Uma Maheshwari Pradheep, who at present is the
Chairperson of Palani Municipality and also claims to be the devotee not
of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple, Palani or the deity therein,
but a devotee interested in protecting the properties of Arulmigu
Dhandayuthapani Swamigal Maddam at Palani. She also claims that the
aforementioned FIR registered, now under investigation by CB-CID,
should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further
investigation. This Writ Petition has not been filed in the nature of a
public interest litigation, but rather in her individual and personal
capacity.
4.The third Writ Petition in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4270 of 2026 filed
again in the nature of a Mandamus. The petitioner therein is
Annapoorani Sivakumar, who has described herself as a Trustee of
Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple at Palani. She also seeks
transfer of the investigation of the aforementioned FIR to the Central
Bureau of Investigation for further investigation. This Writ Petition has
again been filed not as a public interest litigation, but had been filed in
her capacity as Trustee being directly responsible for the administration,
8/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
protection and preservation of the properties endowed in favour of the
said religious institution.
5.Even before traversing into the facts, as alleged by the
petitioners in their respective affidavits or as asserted by the learned
Senior Counsels/Counsels, the Court is wonderstruck by the fact that all
the three petitioners are local residents of Palani. They held or are
holding posts of responsibility. The first petitioner was a former MLA
and incidentally also a former Trustee and whose family, as the learned
Counsel stated with some pride, has the first honour to be bestowed on
them as a matter of right to the exclusion of everybody else on Panguni
Uthiram Festival. The second petitioner is the Chairperson of the local
Municipality and the third petitioner is a Trustee of the Temple. The
Court is wonderstruck because all three of them claim ignorance of the
fact that a substantial large tract of property was the subject matter of a
sale transaction and they were oblivious of any transaction relating to the
same.
9/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
6.They can never claim that they are responsible local citizens
interested in protecting the property if they claim ignorance of the
transactions which took place not in their back yard but actually in their
own front yard. They can never claim innocence of the transactions. They
can never claim indulgence of this Court that they were never privity to
any of the transactions relating to the sale or otherwise attempt to sale of
the property. If they do so, they are not fit to hold the post, which today
they hold or were holding before. Palani is a small town and information
of purported sale of Temple property would spread like wildfire.
Negotiations can never be done without the knowledge of local
heavyweights and the petitioners claim to be local heavyweights.
7.However, keeping those musings aside, arguments have been
advanced seeking to transfer the investigation, not on the basis that the
Central Bureau of Investigation would be doing a better investigation or
that it is a more favoured investigation agency, but rather appear to be
slanted to prevent the CB-CID from investigating further into the matter.
10/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
8.It has been stated that three factors are relevant, namely, the
incidents before the registration of the First Information Report; the
incidents after the registration of the First Information Report; and why
the Central Bureau of Investigation has suddenly become a favoured
Investigating Agency. We make it clear that we have no qualms about
the Central Bureau of Investigation. We have every respect for the
officials therein, but there cannot be transfer of investigation to an
agency merely because there exits an alternate investigating agency.
9.It had been contended that a sale deed, of which all the three
petitioners claim ignorance, though surprisingly the vendor is a local
person and the three petitioners can never claim that he is a stranger to
them, had been presented for registration on 27.03.2026. The vendor
apparently had no right to execute the sale deed. We would however not
enter into a discussion on that fact, particularly because the rights of
inter se are now the subject matter of two civil suits which are now
pending before the competent civil Courts.
11/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
10.But even otherwise, we have to fall back to our observations in
the earlier litigation, which came up before us in W.A.(MD)No.1010 of
2026, in which we pronounced orders on 15.07.2026, observing that the
sale deed was a very strangely written document. So far as the
consideration, which is a backbone of any transaction, was concerned, it
proudly proclaimed that the consideration was paid by way of four
separate negotiable instruments/cheques but did not disclose the bank on
which the cheques had been drawn. The amounts of each cheque were
stated. It is not known whether the account from which the cheques were
drawn had sufficient balance or whether the cheques when presented
would be honoured or whether the cheques were only a ruse to exhibit
payments of consideration, when no consideration had actually flowed.
11.The second aspect in that sale deed which struck us was that the
purchasers did not include an indemnity clause, if ever the sale deed
came to be imputed on any ground. They had no recourse to fall back on
after allegedly making a payment of nearly about Rs.2,00,00,000/- by
way of negotiable instruments. The sale deed had been declared as void
by us, but the purchasers can ever claim back the consideration which
they purportedly paid to the vendor. These observations only reinforce
12/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
our view that the entire transaction is sham and a fraud played by both
vendor and the purchasers on each other and on everybody else.
12.It does indeed surprise us that three Writ Petitioners claim
ignorance of the execution of the sale deed. This particular sale deed was
executed on 27.03.2026 and was presented before the Sub Registrar
Office on 01.04.2026. A refusal check slip was endorsed on the same
day/01.04.2026. Again, we would not enter into any discussion on the
same, since we had occasion to examine that particular refusal check slip
which was also considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, when
that refusal check slip was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.10239 of
2026 and an order was passed on 10.04.2026. The Writ Appeal, flowing
from the order in that particular Writ Petition had been considered by us
in W.A.(MD)No.1010 of 2026 and as aforestated, we had pronounced
orders on 15.07.2026. We are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had not reversed our finding but had only placed a caveat that the
declaration made by us that the document presented for registration and
ultimately registered was void would be subject to the outcome of the
civil suits which are pending.
13/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
13.The First Information Report came to be registered by
Adivaram Police Station, Palani in Cr.No.151 of 2026. The investigation
was transferred to the CB-CID on 14.07.2026 who took over the
investigation on 15.07.2026 and re-registered the FIR in Cr.No.2 of
2026. Investigation is now underway.
14.The learned Public Prosecutor was emphatic in his submission
and asserted that CB-CID have not been in deep slumber as is projected.
A status report has been presented before us by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch-CID, Madurai Range, the
Investigating Officer, who, our opinion, has an onerous task to perform.
He would have been trained in the nuances of investigating an offence.
But now, he has to embark on a journey to examine the trace of title of a
property, which venture somebody trained in civil law would happily
wade into. At any rate, the investigating officer had treaded into this
particular aspect of determining the trace of title of the said property. We
hope that he had properly traced the title and examined the earlier
judicial proceedings and any other aspect.
14/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
15.It is seen that he had examined the financial transaction which
we stated as the consideration part in the sale dead. This sham attempt at
projecting consideration having flowed had been emphasized by the
learned Public Prosecutor. The Investigating Officer had also examined
the electronic communications, the role of private persons and the
conduct of officials of the Registration Department, the HR & CE
Department and the Revenue Department. During the investigation, the
team had also conducted search at 16 locations across six Districts
through 16 Special Teams. They had seized 207 documents, 12 mobile
phones, 3 laptops and 8 other electronic devices including one hard disk,
one DVR and 6 CPUs. They had also discovered and recovered and
seized a sum Rs.2,13,800/-. They have also seized audio records. Six
mobile phones have been secured for investigation by issuing production
memos.
16.We must again emphasize that though investigation had been
handed over to the CB-CID on 14.07.2026, they could swing into action
only on and from 15.07.2026, which date is hardly about 40 days prior to
this date. As of now, they have examined 115 witnesses, which would
show that they have been at the job everyday, on and from the date when
15/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
they commenced the investigation. These witnesses include officials of
the Registration Department, HR & CE Department, Revenue
Department and also persons connected with the transactions and also
independent witnesses. They have also seized 49 records from the
Registration Department, 36 records from the Revenue Department, 23
banking records and 62 Call Detail Records /IPDR. All these collected
materials will have to be analysed. We hold that it definitely should not
be the object of any litigation or any Court to hamper or slow down
investigation or put a cloud over any investigation process. No Court
can state that the investigation is not going on the correct line, when the
Investigating Officer had recorded statements of witnesses; had seized
material objects; and now has the duty to analyse the materials seized and
the statements recorded.
17.Apart from the records mentioned above, the investigation team
have also seized 55 records relating to the property, its administration
and previous proceedings. They have also seized CCTV footages from
the Registration Offices and also from relevant locations. They have also
collected Call Detail Records/IPDRs of various individuals whom they
have categorised as suspects and also of all other connected persons.
16/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
Now they are involved in analysing the communications between the
persons involved. The banking records and financial transactions
relating to the sale consideration, which evidently are not found in the
sale deed in precise terms and the flow of money are also under
investigation. We would only wish them well, as they had to start from
zero without even knowing the bank from which the cheques had been
drawn. The electronic materials which had been seized necessarily will
have to be subjected to forensic examination. Their authenticity will have
to be examined. It has to be further examined, whether they had been
damaged or whether they would reveal any electronic finger print. We
hold that investigation is proceeding on proper lines and should continue.
18.It is also seen that when they were able to get clearance from
various Court proceedings relating to bail and anticipatory bail, they had
taken into custody the key suspects. The Court proceedings relating to
further bail applications are still pending, but the investigating agency is
in the process of collecting evidence from the accused persons. The
accused persons who had been taken into judicial custody have also been
taken into Police custody between 05.08.2026 and 07.08.2026 for further
investigation. They have also arrested the Sub Registrar, who had
17/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
registered the document. They have also arrested a stranger individual
whose name the learned Public Prosecutor, divulged as Jeyaprakash, who
according to the learned Public Prosecutor, had a very decent avocation,
called facilitator, and who facilitated or coordinated the registration
process from the preparation of the sale deed till its registration and had
also the temerity to exercise influence on the concerned officials. He had
been taken into custody on 07.08.2026.
19.An Advocate, Anwardeen, whom the learned Public Prosecutor
asserted was involved in ensuring that this particular property was sold
and had also earlier attempted to sell it in the year 1998 and who had
been involved quite directly in the present sale transaction was also
arrested. However, subsequently, owing to whatever reason he had, he
unfortunately expired. We would not go further into that particular
aspect.
20.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Crl.
(MD)No.4127 of 2026 pointed out this unfortunate death as a
coincidence and stated that coincidences were galore and that another
18/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
accused, the Sub Registrar, who actually registered the document/Justin
Manikandan, complained of giddiness and chest pain and had to be
admitted to Government Medical Hospital. However, thank the Lord, he
has been discharged from hospital on 14.08.2026. He and Jeyaprakash
had been taken into Police custody on 19.08.2026 and subsequently
handed back to judicial custody. It is thus seen that there cannot be any
quarrel over the fact that the investigation is progressing.
21.The learned Senior Counsel also forwarded a list of questions
and wanted the Court to answer them. We unfortunately decline to do so,
as we are neither the Investigating Officers in this particular case nor has
investigation been entrusted to us. We are only examining whether the
present Investigating Agency is discharging its duty.
22.One aspect which has to be examined is whether an order to
transfer investigation could be passed without hearing the accused. This
is a very important question which had not been addressed nor taken up
for consideration.
19/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
23.On behalf of the petitioner in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4127 of 2026,
three separate judgments had been cited, wherein according to them, it
had been held that the accused need not be heard.
24.The first is a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in (2018) 7 SCC 365 in the case of E.Sivakumar -vs.- Union of India . A
careful examination of the facts would show that it related to a multi-
State crime involving high officials of the State and Centre relating to
illegal manufacture and sale of gutkha and paan masala containing
tobacco and/or nicotine. It was an inter-State crime. The network of the
accused was wide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to investigate
such an inter-State crime, it would only be appropriate that it is entrusted
to an organization which cuts across State boundaries and has longer
arms to investigate offences beyond the jurisdiction of a particular State.
That is a significant distinguishing factor. So far as that case was
concerned, the accused are known. They have not been impleaded.
25.The second judgment is the one reported in (2014) 4 SCC 626
in the case of Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki -vs.- State of Gujarat .
20/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
Examination of the facts of that particular case reveal that it had been
filed by the father of a murdered RTI and social activist, who was trying
to expose alleged illegal activities of politicians across the State. The
relief sought was to transfer the investigation from the State Police to the
Central Bureau of Investigation. The Supreme Court held that it was a
cry for justice made by a person whose son was brazenly murdered. In
such a situation, holding that the accused would only be interested in
somehow or the other employing delaying tactics and in ensuring that
investigation does not even commence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
taken upon themselves to answer the cry for justice and to transfer the
investigation. Again, the facts are distinguishable.
26.The third judgment which had been cited is the one reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 65 , in the case of Narender G. Goel -vs.- State of
Maharashtra and another , which related to the murder of a Canadian
citizen at Mumbai. The dead body was sent back to Canada, where a
second autopsy was performed and genetic material was preserved. At
the request of the husband of the deceased, the Chief Coroner at the
Province of Ontario in Canada had written to the Commissioner of Police
in Mumbai that they are ready to assist the Mumbai Police with the help
21/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
of genetic material preserved by them. A petition was also filed in the
High Court seeking a direction to the Mumbai Police to seek such
assistance taking recourse to Section 166-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The High Court declined. The matter then went to the
Supreme Court. Section 166-A Code of Criminal Procedure is a very
rarely used provision, which is a letter of request to the competent
authority for investigation in a country or place outside India. Once the
territorial borders have to be cut across by the Investigating Agency, it
was held appropriate that the Central Investigating Agency takes over
investigation. It was not concentrated on one particular State or as in this
case to one particular District and within a town in that particular District
to within a local area in that particular town. Again, the facts are
distinguishable.
27.The judgment which is more relevant and for some reason had
not been cited across the Bar is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 (State of Punjab -vs.- Davinder
Pal Singh Bhullar and others ). The facts are quite interesting, but let us
not enter into a discussion on the facts. But among other aspects, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guidelines as to when CBI enquiry can be
22/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
directed, which are as follows:
“VI. When CBI enquiry can be directed
71. In Minor Irrigation and Rural Engg. Services,
U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya [(2002) 5 SCC 521 : 2002 SCC
(L&S) 775 : AIR 2002 SC 2225] this Court placed reliance on
its earlier judgment in Common Cause v. Union of
India [(1999) 6 SCC 667 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1196] and held that
before directing CBI to investigate, the court must reach a
conclusion on the basis of pleadings and material on record
that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The
court cannot direct CBI to investigate as to whether a person
committed an offence as alleged or not. The court cannot
merely proceed on the basis of “ifs” and “buts” and think it
appropriate that inquiry should be made by CBI.
72. In Divine Retreat Centre [(2008) 3 SCC 542 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 9] this Court held that the High Court
could have passed a judicial order directing investigation
against a person and his activities only after giving him an
opportunity of being heard. It is not permissible for the court
to set the criminal law in motion on the basis of allegations
made against a person in violation of the principles of natural
23/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
justice. A person against whom an inquiry is directed must
have a reasonable opportunity of being heard as he is likely
to be adversely affected by such order and, particularly, when
such an order results in drastic consequence of affecting his
reputation .
73. In D . Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan
Krishnamachari [(2009) 10 SCC 488 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
358] this Court held that an order passed behind the back of a
party is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on this score.
Therefore, a person against whom an order is passed on the
basis of a criminal petition filed against him, he should be
impleaded as a respondent being a necessary party .
74. This Court in Disha v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 13
SCC 337 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 628 : AIR 2011 SC 3168] after
considering the various judgments of this Court, particularly,
in Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996
SCC (Cri) 264] , Union of India v. Sushil Kumar
Modi [(1998) 8 SCC 661 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 84] , Rajiv Ranjan
Singh ‘Lalan’ (8) v. Union of India [(2006) 6 SCC 613 :
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 125] , Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006]
and Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan [(2011) 3 SCC
24/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
758 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 75] held that the Court can transfer
the matter to CBI or any other special agency only when it is
satisfied that the accused is a very powerful and influential
person or the State authorities like high police officials are
involved in the offence and the investigation has not been
proceeded with in proper direction or the investigation had
been conducted in a biased manner. In such a case, in order to
do complete justice and having belief that it would lend
credibility to the final outcome of the investigation, such
directions may be issued.
75. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that a
constitutional court can direct CBI to investigate into the case
provided the court after examining the allegations in the
complaint reaches a conclusion that the complainant could
make out prima facie, a case against the accused. However,
the person against whom the investigation is sought, is to be
impleaded as a party and must be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard . CBI cannot be directed to have a
roving inquiry as to whether a person was involved in the
alleged unlawful activities. The court can direct CBI
investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the
25/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
court is of the view that the accusation is against a person who
by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it
may prejudice the cause of the complainant, and it is necessary
so to do in order to do complete justice and make the
investigation credible.
(Emphasis supplied)
28.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that while transferring
investigation, the Court should record that a prima facie case had been
made out against the accused and further that the Court cannot direct CBI
to investigate whether a person had committed an offence as alleged or
not. In the instant case, the three Writ Petitioners are still groping around
in the dark and state that those who have been arrayed as accused could
have committed the offence or there could also be somebody else who
could also have committed the offence. They are not circumstances to
compel transfer of investigation.
29.The Supreme Court had also stated in para 72, in what could be
called the Divine Retreat Centre case (Divine Retreat Centre v. State of
Kerala [(2008) 3 SCC 542 ) referred supra , that a judicial order directing
26/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
investigation could be directed only after giving the accused an
opportunity of being heard.
30.Again, in D.Venkatasubramanian , referred supra , and reported
in (2009) 10 SCC 488 , as referred in para 73 cited supra , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had held that an order passed behind the back of a party
is a nullity and liable to be set aside on that score alone. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had reinforced the dictum that a person against whom an
order is passed on the basis of a criminal petition should be impleaded as
a respondent/necessary party.
31.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held and in our opinion, quite
forcefully, that the person against whom the investigation is sought to be
transferred necessarily has to be impleaded as a party and must be given
a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
32.The parameters under which the investigation could be
transferred had again come up for consideration before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a later judgment in the case of Vishal Tiwari (Adani
27/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
Group Investigation) -vs.- Union of India , reported in (2024) 4 SCC
115 , wherein the power to transfer investigation to another agency or to
an SIT/Special Investigating Team, which is also one of the relief sought
by the petitioners herein, had been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme. It
was held as follows:
“D.The plea to transfer the investigation from SEBI to
another agency or to an SIT
(i)The power to transfer an investigation is exercised in
extraordinary situations
31. The petitioners seek the transfer of the investigation
from SEBI to CBI or an SIT. The question that falls for
decision is whether a case has been established by the
petitioners for the court to issue such a direction.
32. This Court does have the power under Article 32 and
Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer an investigation from
the authorised agency to CBI or constitute an SIT. However,
such powers must be exercised sparingly and in extraordinary
circumstances. Unless the authority statutorily entrusted with
the power to investigate portrays a glaring, wilful and
deliberate inaction in carrying out the investigation the court
will ordinarily not supplant the authority which has been
vested with the power to investigate. Such powers must not be
exercised by the court in the absence of cogent justification
indicative of a likely failure of justice in the absence of the
exercise of the power to transfer. The petitioner must place on
28/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
record strong evidence indicating that the investigating agency
has portrayed inadequacy in the investigation or prima facie
appears to be biased.
33. Recently, in Himanshu Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh [Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2023) 12 SCC 592 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884] , this Court,
speaking through one of us (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) relying on a
judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in K.V.
Rajendran v. C BCID [K.V. Rajendran v. C BCID , (2013) 12 SCC
480 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] reiterated the principle that the
power to transfer an investigation to investigating agencies
such as CBI must be invoked only in rare and exceptional
cases. Further, no person can insist that the offence be
investigated by a specific agency since the plea can only be
that the offence be investigated properly . The Court held as
follows : ( Himanshu Kumar case [Himanshu Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 12 SCC 592 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC
884] , SCC paras 51-52 & 54-55 )
“51. Elaborating on this principle, this Court further
BCID
observed : (K.V. Rajendran case [K.V. Rajendran v. C ,
(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
29/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
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.’
52. 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 made by the Constitution Bench in
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [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.
*
54. It has been held by this Court in CBI v. Rajesh
Gandhi [CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996) 11 SCC 253 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 88] , t hat no one can insist that an offence be
investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the
view in the aforesaid decision . An aggrieved person can only
claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but
he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any
particular agency of his choice.
55. The principle of law that emerges from the
precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an
investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in
30/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
33.The Hon'ble Supreme Court had even earlier examined in detail
the case laws relating to transfer of investigation to CBI and one of them
is another interesting case of an individual whose name everybody hears
day in and day out, Arnab Ranjan Goswami -vs.- Union of India ,
reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12 , wherein, after referring to a series of
judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"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, (2010) 3 SCC 571 D.K. Jain, J. observed:
“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
31/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
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.”
43. This principle has been reiterated in K.V. Rajendran
v. CBCID, (2013) 12 SCC 480 Dr B.S. Chauhan, J. speaking
for a three- Judge Bench of this Court held:
“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
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
32/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
fair, honest and complete investigation”, and particularly,
when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the
impartial working of the State agencies.”
46. The principle of law that emerges from the
precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an
investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in
exceptional circumstances”. .... 47. ..... The line of
interrogation either of the petitioner or of the CFO cannot be
controlled or dictated by the persons under
investigation/interrogation. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate
of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , R. Banumathi, J. speaking
for a two- Judge Bench of this Court held that:
“66. ... there is a well-defined and demarcated function
in the field of investigation and its subsequent adjudication. It
is not the function of the court to monitor the investigation
process so long as the investigation does not violate any
provision of law. It must be left to the discretion of the
investigating agency to decide the course of investigation . If
the court is to interfere in each and every stage of the
investigation and the interrogation of the accused, it would
affect the normal course of investigation. It must be left to the
investigating agency to proceed in its own manner in
interrogation of the accused, nature of questions put to him
and the manner of interrogation of the accused.”
This Court held that so long as the investigation does
not violate any provision of law, the investigating agency is
vested with the discretion in directing the course of
investigation, which includes determining the nature of the
33/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
questions and the manner of interrogation. In adopting this
view, this Court relied upon its earlier decisions in State of
Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 222 and Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun
Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52, in which it was held that
the investigating agency is entitled to decide “the venue, the
timings and the questions and the manner of putting such
questions” during the course of the investigation ."
(Emphasis supplied)
34.The dictum laid down is that the accused should be heard or
rather should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and on
examining his version and only when coming to a conclusion that the
case is so sensational that it should be investigated only by the CBI and
that the Investigating Agency which is now investigating the case had
failed to live up to its duty, could there be transfer of investigation. None
of these grounds have been made out by any of the three petitioners,
whose very locus has been seriously questioned by the learned Public
Prosecutor and, who in our opinion, also cannot not maintain the
petitions either in their individual capacity or as public interest litigation.
They are merely busy bodies, who seek to poke their nose into an
ongoing investigation and we sincerely hope not for nefarious reasons.
34/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
35.A series of judgments had been cited across the Bar, but we are
confident that we had cited the relevant judgments on the issue.
36.One further fact which had been stated by the Writ Petitioner in
W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4127 of 2026, is that as a Trustee, the petitioner is a
victim. We do not agree with that proposition. As a Trustee, the
petitioner had failed to protect the properties. As a Trustee, the petitioner
had failed to even sense that there was a transaction in the winds. She
should have exercised more diligence. She had failed to upload the trust
kept in her. She cannot play the victim card, as she claims to be directly
involved with the Trust and its properties.
37.We reject claims of innocence by the three Writ Petitioners. We
reject claims of ignorance. We reject claims of bona fide intent. We
refuse to grant any indulgence.
38.None of the three petitioners can proclaim that they are victims
of any fraud. Investigation is still ongoing. We would not express any
further opinion on the same.
35/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
39.In view of all these reasons, We would dismiss all the three Writ
Petitions and direct the Investigating Agency to proceed further holding
their head high and with confidence that they would come to the correct
conclusion on completion of investigation.
40.In the result, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]
Index :Yes / No 24.08.2026
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
cmr
36/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
To
1.The Additional Director General of Police,
Crime Branch – Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID),
No.220, Pantheaon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.The Inspector of Police,
J-2, Adivaram Police Station,
Adivaram, Palani – 624 601.
3.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Fort St.George, Chennai.
4.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
5.The Additional Director General of Police,
Crime Branch-CID,
Chennai.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul, Dindigul District.
6.The Inspector of Police,
Palani Adivaram PS,
Palani, Dindigul District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID-South,
Dindigul, Dindigul District
37/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )

W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026 and W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN , J.
AND
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
cmr
W.P.Crl.(MD)Nos.4127 and 4270 of 2026
and
W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026
24.08.2026
38/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 31/08/2026 12:11:11 pm )