Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 556
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10449/2022)
RAMACHANDRAIAH & ANR. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M. MANJULA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10515 /2022)
D.A SRINIVAS & ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M. MANJULA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
2 . These appeals would call in question, the impugned
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.04.23
17:40:09 IST
Reason:
Judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the High Court of
2
Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 7784 of 2022
whereby the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 1
was allowed in-part and the orders of Magistrate dated
21.02.2022 and 10.03.2022 passed in P.C.R.No. 51691 of 2020
were set aside only insofar as they directed further
investigation to be conducted by HAL Police Station.
Furthermore, a writ of mandamus was issued to the Central
Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi/respondent No. 11 to
conduct further investigation in Crime Nos. 89 of 2020, 148 of
2020 and 7 of 2021 and submit its report to the concerned
Court within an outer limit of six months.
3 . The appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 10515 of 2022 has
been preferred by 10th respondent before High Court which
would be decided along with this appeal.
4 . Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
4.1 . The Respondent No.1 who was the 1st petitioner
before the High Court is the wife of one K. Raghunath
(hereinafter referred to as deceased) and Respondent No.2 is
the son of Respondent no.1. The deceased during his lifetime
3
allegedly owned many immovable properties in different places
in the District of Bangalore and in several other places. It is
averred that the deceased was closely related to one D.K.
1
Adikeshavalu , a member of Parliament who was active in
politics in his lifetime. DKA died on 24.04.2013 and then began
the scouting of the properties held by DKA. The children of
DKA, in particular Respondent No.12 who is also the appellant
No.1 in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No.10515 of 2022 and
his other close associates started pressuring the deceased for
transfer of some of the immovable properties owned by him.
Respondent No. 12 alleged that the source of income of those
properties which is in the deceased's name is of their father.
However, it is the case of the Respondents that the deceased
resisted pressure of Respondent No. 12 and asserted that he is
the absolute owner of the properties acquired from his own
source of income generated from real estate. As a result, the
tiff between the deceased and the children of the deceased
DKA became irreconcilable.
4.2 . In the year 2016, it transpired that an income tax
raid took place in the premises of late DKA which was
1
‘DKA’
4
attributed to the deceased. It is contended by the respondents
that the deceased had executed a registered Will on
28.01.2016 bequeathing all the properties owned by him in
st
favour of 1 respondent. It is the case of the appellant that the
deceased did not disclose the fact of execution of the Will to
any of the appellants herein during his lifetime. Somehow,
when the deceased wanted to sell one of the properties and
was about to execute a sale deed on 4.05.2019, the
Respondent no. 12 herein got to know of the same and he with
his sister i.e. 14th respondent, summoned the deceased to the
place of the 14th respondent. On being summoned the
deceased left the house on the afternoon of 02.05.2019
informing the respondents herein that he was going to meet
12th and 14th respondents. The deceased was missing for two
days and thereafter, on 04.05.2019, at 7.00 a.m., it was
contended by the respondent that they received a call from the
deceased that his life was in danger. Since K. Raghunath had
expressed threat to his life, the Respondent No.1 sent his
son/respondent No.2 to the house of the first appellant in
appeal arising out SLP No. 10515/2022) to verify about his
nd
father. The 2 respondent went to the guest house situated in
5
Whitefield, Bengaluru and saw his father hanging to a ceiling
fan at about 8.30 a.m. The statement of the 2nd
respondent/son was recorded on the same day, who at that
point of time did not suspect anyone and thought that it was an
act of suicide by his father and gave a statement accordingly to
the Police that he was not suspecting anyone. Based upon the
said statement of the son, an unnatural death report was
generated in U.D.R.No.28 of 2019 by the H.A.L.Police and the
case was closed.
4.3 . On 15.02.2020, a complaint came to be registered
by the Respondent No.1 alleging that her husband i.e. the
deceased had been murdered by respondents 12 to 14 and
others. However, the police refused to register the said
complaint. When the crime was not registered, the Respondent
No.1 preferred a private complaint bearing P.C.R.No.51691 of
2020 invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C alleging commission of
murder of her husband K. Raghunath by respondents 10 to 14.
After conducting an inquiry in the matter, the learned
Magistrate ordered an enquiry on 02.03.2020. In terms of the
order an FIR came to be registered against respondents 10 to
6
13 and appellants, in Crime No.89 of 2020 for offences
punishable under Sections 34, 120B, 467, 468, 421, 474, 302,
464 and 471 of the IPC. It was followed by two other crimes
which also came to be registered in Crime No.148 of 2020 u/s.
34, 120B, 468, 465, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
against appellants and Respondent No. 12 and 13 and Crime
No. 7 of 2021 which was lodged u/s. 420, 255, 257, 259, 256,
258 and 260 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against unknown
persons. The crime was registered on 05.03.2020 i.e. after
almost ten months of the incident. Several civil proceedings
against the respondents were generated after registration of
the crime alleging murder of the deceased.
4.4 . In the interregnum, the respondents knocked the
doors of High Court in Writ Petition No. 4333 of 2021 when the
investigation was not completed despite an order of registration
of crime. The said petition was disposed of directing the
constitution of a SIT to enquire into the complaint within two
weeks. In terms of the direction, an order was issued by the
Department to constitute a three-member Special Investigation
Team (SIT). The SIT conducted investigation and filed a ‘B’
7
report before the concerned Court in Crime No.89 of 2020 and
other crimes 148 of 2020 and 7 of 2021. The learned
Magistrate by his order dated 21.02.2022 rejected the 'B'
report and directed Station House Officer of HAL Police Station
before whom the complaint had been initially registered to
conduct further investigation and submit a report on or before
22.04.2022. The learned Magistrate observed that SIT did not
investigate the case with all fairness and that the investigation
was lopsided. The learned Magistrate observed that the report
of SIT has not taken into account material aspects leading to
the death of the deceased like the cause of death, the events
subsequent to the death of the deceased etc. which were
material facts which needed to be investigated. As a result, the
Magistrate declared the investigation conducted by SIT as
unsatisfactory, shoddy and callous. The Respondents called in
question the said order passed by learned Magistrate and
sought that the investigation of the case be entrusted to CBI in
the light of SIT having already filed a 'B' report in the matter.
4.5 . The High Court vide the impugned order allowed the
writ petition of respondents in part and ordered a writ of
8
mandamus to CBI to conduct further investigation. The High
Court observed that the direction passed by the learned
Magistrate whereby it directed further investigation to be
conducted by the HAL Police Station was rendered without
jurisdiction and required it to be obliterated, as power of
superior Court cannot be exercised by the learned Magistrate.
4.6 . Subsequently, CBI registered FIR against appellants
and Respondent No. 12 to 14 in RC.5/S/2022/CBI/SCB on
30.09.2022 in pursuance of the direction passed by the High
Court vide impugned Order. The Crime no 06(S)/2022 and RC
7(S)/2022 were also registered by CBI, Special Branch
Chennai. The appellants have preferred appeals against the
impugned order. In the meanwhile, CBI conducted a raid on
11.11.2022 at the residential office and residential premises of
Respondent No. 12-14.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
5 . At the outset, learned senior counsel Mr. Aman Lekhi for
the appellants would contend that the direction to conduct
‘further investigation’ by CBI in Crime Nos. 89 & 148 of 2020
and Crime No. 7 of 2021 is illegal and unsustainable.
9
He further argued that the appellants did not suppress the
orders dated 09.12.2020 & 04.07.2022 in CRL Petition Nos.
2642 of 2020 & 5856 of 2022 respectively as alleged by
respondents herein which pertained to quashing petitions filed
u/s 482 Cr.P.C vis-à-vis quashing criminal proceedings arising
from only one FIR i.e. Crime No. 89/2020 in P.C.R. 51691/20
which is not the subject matter in the present appeals.
Learned senior counsel questioned whether the Ld.
Magistrate had jurisdiction to even take cognizance u/s
190(1)(a) Cr.P.C when proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C has been
closed, and more so even direct for investigation into an
offence exclusively triable by the court of sessions through a
private complaint belatedly filed by exercising the limited
power u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. which dealt with only ascertaining
whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding.
Learned senior counsel submitted that respondents
herein had filed private complaint against the appellants herein
belatedly after a lapse of over ten months and post obtaining
knowledge with regards to the fact that the appellants had
been witnesses to the last will of deceased dated 20.04.2018
10
which bestowed limited benefits on respondents No.1 & 2. The
appellants’ counsel also argued that Respondent No.2 who was
the informant in UDR case gave an identical statement that his
father was in financial distress and committed suicide. It was
argued that pursuant to Order dated 28.04.2021 passed by
High Court of Karnataka in W.P. 4333/2021, SIT headed by a
Deputy Commissioner of Police was appointed who submitted a
639-pages B-report with the finding that there were no
material evidences to link the appellants herein vis-à-vis the
allegations levelled by Respondent No.1 in the private
complaint. Further it was argued that appellants are father and
brother of the deceased who are impecunious farmers.
Appellant No. 1 is 89 years old who is at the fag end of his life
and the younger brother who is appellant No.2 had all his life
lived in Chittoor. Learned counsel contended that Respondent
No.1, 2 and the other grandson wants to usurp all the
properties of the deceased son which rightly belonged to D.A
Srinivas.
The learned senior counsel for the appellants further
argued that no direction for investigation could have been
11
made by the learned Magistrate under section 202 of the Code
as offence complained was triable exclusively by the Court of
Session and Magistrate was obligated to make an enquiry and
call upon the complainant to produce all her witnesses and
examine them on oath as contained under section 202(2) of
the Code. Even after that, FIR could not be registered since FIR
could have been registered only under Chapter XII of the Code.
The Counsel pointed out that the procedure adopted is
unknown to the law since there was no occasion for transfer of
investigation to CBI since the registration of FIR was in itself
illegal. In fact, no hearing was afforded to the appellants.
6 . Per contra , Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Dushyant Dave,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the deceased was a confidant of former Member of
Parliament, DKA and being a successful realtor had lawfully
acquired several movable and immovable properties during his
lifetime which was to be succeeded by wife and children. Since
the deceased was apprehending danger to his life, he had
executed a Will dated 28.01.2016 expressing his wish to
bequeath all the properties in favour of his wife/respondent
12
no.1. However, suddenly a fabricated Will dated 20.04.2018,
posthumously registered on 31.12.2019 came into existence
bequeathing the properties of the deceased in favour of
respondent no. 12 which was prepared in connivance with
respondent no. 13 in furtherance of the conspiracy to extort
the properties. In the report of the Truth Lab (Annexure R-3
in this appeal), it was found that the Will dated 20.04.2018 was
fabricated. The Office of Gandhinagar Sub-Registrar has also
filed a complaint before the Halasuru Police station on
conducting an independent preliminary inquiry on the
complaint lodged by respondent no. 2. Later on, an FIR dated
04.01.2021 bearing Crime No. 7 of 2021 came to be registered
for counterfeiting stamps and documents (Annexure P-17 in
this appeal). Basing this it is argued that the constitution of SIT
turned into a nightmare and sitting like a snake in the grass.
Therefore, the High Court has rightly directed for an
investigation by the CBI.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel would
vehemently argue that when the learned Magistrate directed
for registration of FIR, the appellants preferred Criminal
13
Petition No. 2642 of 2020 before the High Court seeking
quashing of the order directing registration of FIR in Crime No.
89 of 2020 and the entire criminal proceedings as well
including the investigation of HAL Police Station, Bangalore.
However, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure R-4 in this appeal).
Therefore, the argument challenging registration of FIR is no
longer available to the appellants.
Referring to the discrepancies in the SIT report which is
highlighted in the order passed by the learned Magistrate as
well as in the impugned order, Mr. Rohatgi would submit that
the High Court has rightly interfered in the matter to direct fair
and impartial investigation by the CBI.
ANALYSIS
7 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length who have taken us through the entire material on
record. However, considering the nature of the order, we
propose to pass, we are not referring to the details, lest it may
affect either of the parties at any subsequent proceeding
including CBI investigation.
14
8 . The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants revolved around the
Magistrate’s power to direct for registration of FIR for an
offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. However,
despite seriously considering the said argument, we are not
impressed to dwell on the issue for the reason that when the
learned Magistrate directed for registration of FIR vide its order
dated 02.03.2020, the appellants challenged the same by
preferring Criminal Petition No. 2642 of 2020 under Section
482 Cr.P.C. which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 09.12.2020 in the following words:
“ This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire Criminal Proceedings pending
on the file of the Hon’ble XXIX ACMM, Mayo Hall Bengaluru
PCR No. 51691/2020 and its consequent registration of FIR
st
in Cr. No. 89/2020 and pursuant investigation by 1
respondent H.A.L. Police Station, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
through video conference the Court made the following:
ORDER
Sri. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel appearing for Sri.
Mahesh S., learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo
dated 09.12.2020 seeking permission to withdraw the
petition reserving liberty to approach this Hon’ble Court, if
necessary, in future.
2. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.
Kaleem Sabir, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is also
15
present virtually. He submits that he has no objection to
withdraw the petition.
3. The said memo is placed on record and the petition is
dismissed as withdrawn .
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No. 1/2020
does not survive for consideration and the same is also
liable to be disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE”
9 . The appellants having withdrawn the challenge to the
registration of the FIR, we are not in a position to take the
cause further as it has become final and binding on the parties.
Thus, the issue regarding registration of FIR is not open to be
called in question in any subsequent proceedings.
10. We shall now consider as to whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in
directing for investigation by the CBI.
11 . It has been settled in catena of decisions that the
High Court or the Supreme Court being Constitutional Court is
vested with extra-ordinary power to direct CBI investigation
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The
Constitutional Courts are expectantly and reverently entrusted
with the duty to serve justice being a sovereign and premiere
16
2
constitutional institution. In “ Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali” ,
this Court has held that the power to direct for CBI
investigation is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
circumstances, but, when the facts so demand, it is extremely
necessary to exercise the said power to provide credibility and
instil confidence in order to do complete justice and for
enforcing the fundamental rights. The following principle has
been laid down by this Court in paragraphs 33, 43, 44 & 45:
“ 33. This judgment, thus, clearly shows that the Court of
Magistrate has a clear power to direct further investigation
when a report is filed under Section 173(2) and may also
exercise such powers with the aid of Section 156(3) of the
Code. The lurking doubt, if any, that remained in giving
wider interpretation to Section 173(8) was removed and
controversy put to an end by the judgment of this Court
in Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI [(2001) 7 SCC 536 : 2001 SCC
(Cri) 1280] where the Court held that although the said
section does not, in specific terms, mention the power of
the court to order further investigation, the power of the
police to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can
be triggered into motion at the instance of the court. When
any such order is passed by the court, which has the
jurisdiction to do so, then such order should not even be
interfered with in exercise of a higher court's revisional
jurisdiction. Such orders would normally be of an advantage
to achieve the ends of justice. It was clarified, without
ambiguity, that the Magistrate, in exercise of powers under
Section 173(8) of the Code can direct CBI to further
investigate the case and collect further evidence keeping in
view the objections raised by the appellant to the
investigation and the new report to be submitted by the
investigating officer, would be governed by sub-section (2)
2
(2013) 5 SCC 762
17
to sub-section (6) of Section 173 of the Code. There is no
occasion for the Court to interpret Section 173(8) of the
Code restrictively. After filing of the final report, the learned
Magistrate can also take cognizance on the basis of the
material placed on record by the investigating agency and it
is permissible for him to direct further investigation.
Conduct of proper and fair investigation is the hallmark of
any criminal investigation .
43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled
canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts
have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct “further
investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even
“reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation”
are synonymous expressions and their result in law would
be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the
power of transferring investigation from one agency to
another, provided the ends of justice so demand such
action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this
power has to be exercised by the superior courts very
sparingly and with great circumspection.
44. We have deliberated at some length on the issue that
the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code
do not control or limit, directly or impliedly, the width of the
power of the Magistrate under Section 228 of the Code.
Wherever a charge-sheet has been submitted to the court,
even this Court ordinarily would not reopen the
investigation, especially by entrusting the same to a
specialised agency. It can safely be stated and concluded
that in an appropriate case, when the Court feels that the
investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper
direction and that in order to do complete justice and where
the facts of the case demand, it is always open to the Court
to hand over the investigation to a specialised agency.
These principles have been reiterated with approval in the
judgments of this Court in Disha v. State of Gujarat [(2011)
13 SCC 337 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 628] , Vineet
Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 307] , Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi [(1996) 6
SCC 500] and Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006] .
18
45. The power to order/direct “reinvestigation” or “de novo”
investigation falls in the domain of higher courts, that too in
exceptional cases. If one examines the provisions of the
Code, there is no specific provision for cancellation of the
reports, except that the investigating agency can file a
closure report (where according to the investigating agency,
no offence is made out). Even such a report is subject to
acceptance by the learned Magistrate who, in his wisdom,
may or may not accept such a report. For valid reasons, the
court may, by declining to accept such a report, direct
“further investigation”, or even on the basis of the record of
the case and the documents annexed thereto, summon the
accused.”
3
12. Yet again in “ Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. ,
this Court has held thus in paras 75, 79 & 80 :
” 75. That the extraordinary power of the constitutional
courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India
qua the issuance of direction to CBI to conduct investigation
must be exercised with great caution, was underlined
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] as adverted to
hereinabove. Observing that although no inflexible
guidelines can be laid down in this regard, it was
highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a
matter of routine or merely because the party has levelled
some allegations against the local police and can be invoked
in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or
where the incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for
doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental
rights.
79. The precedential ordainment against absolute
prohibition for assignment of investigation to any impartial
agency like CBI, submission of the charge-sheet by the
3
(2016) 3 SCC 135
19
normal investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit
in an exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in
order to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation
and to consolidate the confidence of the victim(s) and the
public in general in the justice administering mechanism, is
thus unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a
measure, however, can by no means be a matter of course
or routine but has to be essentially adopted in order to live
up to and effectuate the salutary objective of guaranteeing
an independent and upright mechanism of justice
dispensation without fear or favour, by treating all alike.
80. In the decisions cited on behalf of CBI as well, this
Court in K. Saravanan Karuppasamy [ K. Saravanan
Karuppasamy v. State of T.N. , (2014) 10 SCC 406 : (2015)
1 SCC (Cri) 133] and Sudipta Lenka [ Sudipta Lenka v. State
of Odisha , (2014) 11 SCC 527 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 428] ,
recounted the above propositions underpinning the primacy
of credibility and confidence in investigations and a need for
complete justice and enforcement of fundamental rights
judged on the touchstone of high public interest and the
paramountcy of the rule of law.”
13 . It was argued by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel
for the respondents that the appellants are not entitled to
maintain these appeals as the present is the case where only
an investigation has been directed. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned
senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the
appellants’ legal right to defend themselves at the preliminary
stage also is well recognized and if they apprehend of them
being unnecessarily involved in a criminal prosecution, they are
entitled to maintain this appeal to challenge the CBI
investigation into the matter.
20
14 . It is settled in the matter of Union of India & Anr.
4
vs. W.N. Chadha , that a prospective accused has no right to
be heard at the stage of registration of FIR. Although the
appellants have not succeeded in their challenge to the lodging
of the FIR, having abandoned the challenge by withdrawing Crl.
M.P No. 2642 of 2020 in the High Court, yet, we are referring
to the principles so as to deal with the argument raised by Mr.
Lekhi. The following is held in para 92:
“ 92. More so, the accused has no right to have any say as
regards the manner and method of investigation. Save
under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the
Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right
during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on
a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a
final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a
proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till
the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the
case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence
is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said
offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by
the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have
participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of
process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 of
the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry
but cannot participate. There are various judicial
pronouncements to this effect, but we feel that it is not
necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time,
we would like to point out that there are certain provisions
under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an
opportunity of being heard under certain specified
circumstances.”
4
(1993) Supp (4) SCC 260
21
15 . The principle laid down in W.N. Chadha (supra) has
been reiterated in Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah vs. State
5
of Gujarat & Ors. , wherein the following has been held in
para 10:
10. …….It is required to be noted that, as such, even the
“
proposed accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have any say at
this stage in an application under Section 173(8) CrPC for
further investigation, as observed by this Court in W.N.
Chadha [Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4)
SCC 260 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 1171] ; Narender G.
Goel [Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6
SCC 65 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 933] and Dinubhai Baghabhai
Solanki [Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat,
(2014) 4 SCC 626 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 384] . In Dinubhai
Baghabhai Solanki [Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of
Gujarat, (2014) 4 SCC 626 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 384] after
considering another decision of this Court in Sri Bhagwan
Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha
Maharaj v. State of A.P. [Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada
Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P.,
(1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047] , it is observed
and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8) CrPC to
suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused
before any direction for further investigation is made.
In Sri Bhagwan Samardha [Sri Bhagwan Samardha
Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State
of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047] , this
Court in para 11 held as under : (Sri Bhagwan Samardha
case [Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata
Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC 740 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 1047] , SCC p. 743)
“11. In such a situation the power of the court to
direct the police to conduct further investigation
cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section
173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the
accused before any such direction is made. Casting of
5
(2020) 4 SCC 22
22
any such obligation on the court would only result in
encumbering the court with the burden of searching
for all the potential accused to be afforded with the
opportunity of being heard. As the law does not
require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with
such an obligation.”
16 . Thus, the law settled on the above score answers the
argument raised by Mr. Lekhi. Therefore, we are of the
considered view that once an FIR is registered and
investigation has taken place, direction for an investigation by
the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or
accused. The matter for entrusting investigation to a particular
agency is basically at the discretion of the Court.
17 . At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the
observation made by this Court in the matter of Mandakini
6
Diwan & Anr. vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. ,
wherein this Court directed for investigation by the CBI in a
matter, like the present one, where at an earlier stage the
police had filed a closure report treating it to be a case of
suicide. The following has been held by this Court in paras 8,
20 & 21:
6
(2024) SCC online SC 2448
23
“ 8. According to the appellants, the police filed the closure
report treating it to be a case of suicide. The appellants
repeatedly continued to represent to the authorities for a
fair investigation after registering first information report.
All the complaints made by the appellants to the authorities
did not result in the registering of FIR against Respondent
7. All the complaints though were inquired into but were
ultimately closed as a result of the influence exerted by
Respondent 7. Till date, neither FIR has been registered on
the several complaints made by the appellants nor a fair
investigation has been carried out in order to find out the
truth.
*
20. In Awungshi Chirmayo v. State (NCT of Delhi), this
Court directed CBI to hold enquiry in the criminal matter
related to murder of two cousins due to certain puzzling
facts including inconclusive post-mortem report. It held as
follows: (SCC pp. 572-73, paras 14-18)
“14. In a seminal judgment reported as State of
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights , this Court has discussed in detail inter alia
the circumstances under which the constitutional
courts would be empowered to issue directions for
CBI enquiry to be made. This Court noted that the
power to transfer investigation should be used
sparingly, however, it could be used for doing
complete justice and ensuring there is no violation
of fundamental rights. This is what the Court said
in para 70: (SCC p. 602)
‘70. … 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
24
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.’
15. The powers of this Court for directing further
investigation regardless of the stage of
investigation are extremely wide. This can be done
even if the charge-sheet has been submitted by the
prosecuting agency. In Bharati Tamang v. Union of
India , this Court allowed the writ petition filed by
the widow of late Madan Tamang who was killed
during a political clash and directed investigation
by CBI which would be monitored by the Joint
Director, CBI. The following observations were
made in para 44: (SCC p. 601)
‘44. … Whether it be due to political rivalry or
personal vengeance or for that matter for any
other motive a murder takes place, it is the
responsibility of the police to come up to the
expectation of the public at large and display
that no stone will remain unturned to book the
culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt
with under the provisions of the criminal law of
prosecution. Any slackness displayed in that
process will not be in the interest of the public
at large and therefore as has been pointed out
by this Court in the various decisions, which
we have referred to in the earlier paragraphs,
we find that it is our responsibility to ensure
that the prosecution agency is reminded of its
responsibility and duties in the discharge of its
functions effectively and efficiently and ensure
that the criminal prosecution is carried on
effectively and the perpetrators of crime are
duly punished by the appropriate court of law.’
16. This Court has expressed its strong views about
the need of Courts to be alive to genuine
grievances brought before it by ordinary citizens as
has been held in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v.
State of Gujarat .
25
17. It is to observe that unresolved crimes tend to
erode public trust in institutions which have been
established for maintaining law and order. Criminal
investigation must be both fair and effective. We
say nothing on the fairness of the investigation
appears to us, but the fact that it has been
ineffective is self-evident. The kith and kin of the
deceased who live far away in Manipur have a real
logistical problem while approaching authorities in
Delhi, yet they have their hope alive, and have
shown trust and confidence in this system. We are
therefore of the considered view that this case
needs to be handed over to CBI, for a proper
investigation and also to remove any doubts in the
minds of the appellants, and to bring the real
culprits to justice.
18. In view of the discussion made above, the
order of the Delhi High Court dated 18-5-2018,
dismissing the prayer of the present appellants to
transfer the investigation to CBI is hereby set
aside. The appeal is hereby allowed and we direct
that CBI to hold enquiry in the matter. The case
shall be transferred from SIT to CBI. The SIT,
which has so far conducted the investigation in the
matter, will hand over all the relevant papers and
documents to CBI for investigation. After a
thorough investigation, CBI will submit its complete
investigation report or charge-sheet before the
court concerned as expeditiously as possible.”
21. It is true that power to direct CBI to conduct
investigation is to be exercised sparingly and such orders
should not be passed in a routine manner. In the present
case, the aggrieved party has raised allegations of bias and
undue influence on the police machinery of the State of
Chhattisgarh. Coupled with the fact that the thorough, fair
and independent investigation needs to be carried out to
find out the truth about the whole incident and in particular
about the ante-mortem injuries. We are of the view that
such a direction needs to be issued in the present case. ”
26
18. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the
deceased was closely associated with DKA, a member of
Parliament and Chairman of Temple Sri Venkateswara Swamy
Temple (Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam). The deceased, a
close confidant of DKA, was a successful realtor and had huge
assets in and around Bangalore. His mysterious death was
preceded by execution of two different Wills, one in favour of
his wife/respondent no. 1 and the other in favour of respondent
No. 12 which was registered after his controversial death.
There are civil proceedings relating to mutation and declaration
of title as well as the allegations concerning forgery of stamp
papers. The learned Magistrate while directing further
investigation and the High Court, under the impugned order,
has highlighted the glaring defects in the investigation which
we have avoided to reiterate so that it does not influence the
CBI investigation. However, the fact remains that the truth
surrendering the death of K. Raghunath needs to be settled
after a complete and fair investigation by the CBI which, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, has rightly been
directed by the High Court.
27
19 . We, accordingly, affirm the order of the High Court
and dismiss the appeals. The CBI shall conduct the
investigation within a period of 08 months and the State of
Karnataka shall render all possible assistance to the CBI to
make a fair investigation into the crime. The entire papers shall
be handed over by the concerned police to the CBI within 15
days. If the CBI proceeds to file chargesheet, the same shall be
submitted before the jurisdictional CBI Court in the State of
Karnataka.
………………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 556
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10449/2022)
RAMACHANDRAIAH & ANR. ... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M. MANJULA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). __________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10515 /2022)
D.A SRINIVAS & ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M. MANJULA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
2 . These appeals would call in question, the impugned
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.04.23
17:40:09 IST
Reason:
Judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the High Court of
2
Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 7784 of 2022
whereby the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 1
was allowed in-part and the orders of Magistrate dated
21.02.2022 and 10.03.2022 passed in P.C.R.No. 51691 of 2020
were set aside only insofar as they directed further
investigation to be conducted by HAL Police Station.
Furthermore, a writ of mandamus was issued to the Central
Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi/respondent No. 11 to
conduct further investigation in Crime Nos. 89 of 2020, 148 of
2020 and 7 of 2021 and submit its report to the concerned
Court within an outer limit of six months.
3 . The appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 10515 of 2022 has
been preferred by 10th respondent before High Court which
would be decided along with this appeal.
4 . Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
4.1 . The Respondent No.1 who was the 1st petitioner
before the High Court is the wife of one K. Raghunath
(hereinafter referred to as deceased) and Respondent No.2 is
the son of Respondent no.1. The deceased during his lifetime
3
allegedly owned many immovable properties in different places
in the District of Bangalore and in several other places. It is
averred that the deceased was closely related to one D.K.
1
Adikeshavalu , a member of Parliament who was active in
politics in his lifetime. DKA died on 24.04.2013 and then began
the scouting of the properties held by DKA. The children of
DKA, in particular Respondent No.12 who is also the appellant
No.1 in appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No.10515 of 2022 and
his other close associates started pressuring the deceased for
transfer of some of the immovable properties owned by him.
Respondent No. 12 alleged that the source of income of those
properties which is in the deceased's name is of their father.
However, it is the case of the Respondents that the deceased
resisted pressure of Respondent No. 12 and asserted that he is
the absolute owner of the properties acquired from his own
source of income generated from real estate. As a result, the
tiff between the deceased and the children of the deceased
DKA became irreconcilable.
4.2 . In the year 2016, it transpired that an income tax
raid took place in the premises of late DKA which was
1
‘DKA’
4
attributed to the deceased. It is contended by the respondents
that the deceased had executed a registered Will on
28.01.2016 bequeathing all the properties owned by him in
st
favour of 1 respondent. It is the case of the appellant that the
deceased did not disclose the fact of execution of the Will to
any of the appellants herein during his lifetime. Somehow,
when the deceased wanted to sell one of the properties and
was about to execute a sale deed on 4.05.2019, the
Respondent no. 12 herein got to know of the same and he with
his sister i.e. 14th respondent, summoned the deceased to the
place of the 14th respondent. On being summoned the
deceased left the house on the afternoon of 02.05.2019
informing the respondents herein that he was going to meet
12th and 14th respondents. The deceased was missing for two
days and thereafter, on 04.05.2019, at 7.00 a.m., it was
contended by the respondent that they received a call from the
deceased that his life was in danger. Since K. Raghunath had
expressed threat to his life, the Respondent No.1 sent his
son/respondent No.2 to the house of the first appellant in
appeal arising out SLP No. 10515/2022) to verify about his
nd
father. The 2 respondent went to the guest house situated in
5
Whitefield, Bengaluru and saw his father hanging to a ceiling
fan at about 8.30 a.m. The statement of the 2nd
respondent/son was recorded on the same day, who at that
point of time did not suspect anyone and thought that it was an
act of suicide by his father and gave a statement accordingly to
the Police that he was not suspecting anyone. Based upon the
said statement of the son, an unnatural death report was
generated in U.D.R.No.28 of 2019 by the H.A.L.Police and the
case was closed.
4.3 . On 15.02.2020, a complaint came to be registered
by the Respondent No.1 alleging that her husband i.e. the
deceased had been murdered by respondents 12 to 14 and
others. However, the police refused to register the said
complaint. When the crime was not registered, the Respondent
No.1 preferred a private complaint bearing P.C.R.No.51691 of
2020 invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C alleging commission of
murder of her husband K. Raghunath by respondents 10 to 14.
After conducting an inquiry in the matter, the learned
Magistrate ordered an enquiry on 02.03.2020. In terms of the
order an FIR came to be registered against respondents 10 to
6
13 and appellants, in Crime No.89 of 2020 for offences
punishable under Sections 34, 120B, 467, 468, 421, 474, 302,
464 and 471 of the IPC. It was followed by two other crimes
which also came to be registered in Crime No.148 of 2020 u/s.
34, 120B, 468, 465, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
against appellants and Respondent No. 12 and 13 and Crime
No. 7 of 2021 which was lodged u/s. 420, 255, 257, 259, 256,
258 and 260 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against unknown
persons. The crime was registered on 05.03.2020 i.e. after
almost ten months of the incident. Several civil proceedings
against the respondents were generated after registration of
the crime alleging murder of the deceased.
4.4 . In the interregnum, the respondents knocked the
doors of High Court in Writ Petition No. 4333 of 2021 when the
investigation was not completed despite an order of registration
of crime. The said petition was disposed of directing the
constitution of a SIT to enquire into the complaint within two
weeks. In terms of the direction, an order was issued by the
Department to constitute a three-member Special Investigation
Team (SIT). The SIT conducted investigation and filed a ‘B’
7
report before the concerned Court in Crime No.89 of 2020 and
other crimes 148 of 2020 and 7 of 2021. The learned
Magistrate by his order dated 21.02.2022 rejected the 'B'
report and directed Station House Officer of HAL Police Station
before whom the complaint had been initially registered to
conduct further investigation and submit a report on or before
22.04.2022. The learned Magistrate observed that SIT did not
investigate the case with all fairness and that the investigation
was lopsided. The learned Magistrate observed that the report
of SIT has not taken into account material aspects leading to
the death of the deceased like the cause of death, the events
subsequent to the death of the deceased etc. which were
material facts which needed to be investigated. As a result, the
Magistrate declared the investigation conducted by SIT as
unsatisfactory, shoddy and callous. The Respondents called in
question the said order passed by learned Magistrate and
sought that the investigation of the case be entrusted to CBI in
the light of SIT having already filed a 'B' report in the matter.
4.5 . The High Court vide the impugned order allowed the
writ petition of respondents in part and ordered a writ of
8
mandamus to CBI to conduct further investigation. The High
Court observed that the direction passed by the learned
Magistrate whereby it directed further investigation to be
conducted by the HAL Police Station was rendered without
jurisdiction and required it to be obliterated, as power of
superior Court cannot be exercised by the learned Magistrate.
4.6 . Subsequently, CBI registered FIR against appellants
and Respondent No. 12 to 14 in RC.5/S/2022/CBI/SCB on
30.09.2022 in pursuance of the direction passed by the High
Court vide impugned Order. The Crime no 06(S)/2022 and RC
7(S)/2022 were also registered by CBI, Special Branch
Chennai. The appellants have preferred appeals against the
impugned order. In the meanwhile, CBI conducted a raid on
11.11.2022 at the residential office and residential premises of
Respondent No. 12-14.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
5 . At the outset, learned senior counsel Mr. Aman Lekhi for
the appellants would contend that the direction to conduct
‘further investigation’ by CBI in Crime Nos. 89 & 148 of 2020
and Crime No. 7 of 2021 is illegal and unsustainable.
9
He further argued that the appellants did not suppress the
orders dated 09.12.2020 & 04.07.2022 in CRL Petition Nos.
2642 of 2020 & 5856 of 2022 respectively as alleged by
respondents herein which pertained to quashing petitions filed
u/s 482 Cr.P.C vis-à-vis quashing criminal proceedings arising
from only one FIR i.e. Crime No. 89/2020 in P.C.R. 51691/20
which is not the subject matter in the present appeals.
Learned senior counsel questioned whether the Ld.
Magistrate had jurisdiction to even take cognizance u/s
190(1)(a) Cr.P.C when proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C has been
closed, and more so even direct for investigation into an
offence exclusively triable by the court of sessions through a
private complaint belatedly filed by exercising the limited
power u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. which dealt with only ascertaining
whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding.
Learned senior counsel submitted that respondents
herein had filed private complaint against the appellants herein
belatedly after a lapse of over ten months and post obtaining
knowledge with regards to the fact that the appellants had
been witnesses to the last will of deceased dated 20.04.2018
10
which bestowed limited benefits on respondents No.1 & 2. The
appellants’ counsel also argued that Respondent No.2 who was
the informant in UDR case gave an identical statement that his
father was in financial distress and committed suicide. It was
argued that pursuant to Order dated 28.04.2021 passed by
High Court of Karnataka in W.P. 4333/2021, SIT headed by a
Deputy Commissioner of Police was appointed who submitted a
639-pages B-report with the finding that there were no
material evidences to link the appellants herein vis-à-vis the
allegations levelled by Respondent No.1 in the private
complaint. Further it was argued that appellants are father and
brother of the deceased who are impecunious farmers.
Appellant No. 1 is 89 years old who is at the fag end of his life
and the younger brother who is appellant No.2 had all his life
lived in Chittoor. Learned counsel contended that Respondent
No.1, 2 and the other grandson wants to usurp all the
properties of the deceased son which rightly belonged to D.A
Srinivas.
The learned senior counsel for the appellants further
argued that no direction for investigation could have been
11
made by the learned Magistrate under section 202 of the Code
as offence complained was triable exclusively by the Court of
Session and Magistrate was obligated to make an enquiry and
call upon the complainant to produce all her witnesses and
examine them on oath as contained under section 202(2) of
the Code. Even after that, FIR could not be registered since FIR
could have been registered only under Chapter XII of the Code.
The Counsel pointed out that the procedure adopted is
unknown to the law since there was no occasion for transfer of
investigation to CBI since the registration of FIR was in itself
illegal. In fact, no hearing was afforded to the appellants.
6 . Per contra , Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Dushyant Dave,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the deceased was a confidant of former Member of
Parliament, DKA and being a successful realtor had lawfully
acquired several movable and immovable properties during his
lifetime which was to be succeeded by wife and children. Since
the deceased was apprehending danger to his life, he had
executed a Will dated 28.01.2016 expressing his wish to
bequeath all the properties in favour of his wife/respondent
12
no.1. However, suddenly a fabricated Will dated 20.04.2018,
posthumously registered on 31.12.2019 came into existence
bequeathing the properties of the deceased in favour of
respondent no. 12 which was prepared in connivance with
respondent no. 13 in furtherance of the conspiracy to extort
the properties. In the report of the Truth Lab (Annexure R-3
in this appeal), it was found that the Will dated 20.04.2018 was
fabricated. The Office of Gandhinagar Sub-Registrar has also
filed a complaint before the Halasuru Police station on
conducting an independent preliminary inquiry on the
complaint lodged by respondent no. 2. Later on, an FIR dated
04.01.2021 bearing Crime No. 7 of 2021 came to be registered
for counterfeiting stamps and documents (Annexure P-17 in
this appeal). Basing this it is argued that the constitution of SIT
turned into a nightmare and sitting like a snake in the grass.
Therefore, the High Court has rightly directed for an
investigation by the CBI.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel would
vehemently argue that when the learned Magistrate directed
for registration of FIR, the appellants preferred Criminal
13
Petition No. 2642 of 2020 before the High Court seeking
quashing of the order directing registration of FIR in Crime No.
89 of 2020 and the entire criminal proceedings as well
including the investigation of HAL Police Station, Bangalore.
However, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure R-4 in this appeal).
Therefore, the argument challenging registration of FIR is no
longer available to the appellants.
Referring to the discrepancies in the SIT report which is
highlighted in the order passed by the learned Magistrate as
well as in the impugned order, Mr. Rohatgi would submit that
the High Court has rightly interfered in the matter to direct fair
and impartial investigation by the CBI.
ANALYSIS
7 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length who have taken us through the entire material on
record. However, considering the nature of the order, we
propose to pass, we are not referring to the details, lest it may
affect either of the parties at any subsequent proceeding
including CBI investigation.
14
8 . The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellants revolved around the
Magistrate’s power to direct for registration of FIR for an
offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. However,
despite seriously considering the said argument, we are not
impressed to dwell on the issue for the reason that when the
learned Magistrate directed for registration of FIR vide its order
dated 02.03.2020, the appellants challenged the same by
preferring Criminal Petition No. 2642 of 2020 under Section
482 Cr.P.C. which came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 09.12.2020 in the following words:
“ This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
praying to quash the entire Criminal Proceedings pending
on the file of the Hon’ble XXIX ACMM, Mayo Hall Bengaluru
PCR No. 51691/2020 and its consequent registration of FIR
st
in Cr. No. 89/2020 and pursuant investigation by 1
respondent H.A.L. Police Station, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
through video conference the Court made the following:
ORDER
Sri. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel appearing for Sri.
Mahesh S., learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo
dated 09.12.2020 seeking permission to withdraw the
petition reserving liberty to approach this Hon’ble Court, if
necessary, in future.
2. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.
Kaleem Sabir, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is also
15
present virtually. He submits that he has no objection to
withdraw the petition.
3. The said memo is placed on record and the petition is
dismissed as withdrawn .
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No. 1/2020
does not survive for consideration and the same is also
liable to be disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE”
9 . The appellants having withdrawn the challenge to the
registration of the FIR, we are not in a position to take the
cause further as it has become final and binding on the parties.
Thus, the issue regarding registration of FIR is not open to be
called in question in any subsequent proceedings.
10. We shall now consider as to whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in
directing for investigation by the CBI.
11 . It has been settled in catena of decisions that the
High Court or the Supreme Court being Constitutional Court is
vested with extra-ordinary power to direct CBI investigation
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The
Constitutional Courts are expectantly and reverently entrusted
with the duty to serve justice being a sovereign and premiere
16
2
constitutional institution. In “ Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali” ,
this Court has held that the power to direct for CBI
investigation is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
circumstances, but, when the facts so demand, it is extremely
necessary to exercise the said power to provide credibility and
instil confidence in order to do complete justice and for
enforcing the fundamental rights. The following principle has
been laid down by this Court in paragraphs 33, 43, 44 & 45:
“ 33. This judgment, thus, clearly shows that the Court of
Magistrate has a clear power to direct further investigation
when a report is filed under Section 173(2) and may also
exercise such powers with the aid of Section 156(3) of the
Code. The lurking doubt, if any, that remained in giving
wider interpretation to Section 173(8) was removed and
controversy put to an end by the judgment of this Court
in Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI [(2001) 7 SCC 536 : 2001 SCC
(Cri) 1280] where the Court held that although the said
section does not, in specific terms, mention the power of
the court to order further investigation, the power of the
police to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can
be triggered into motion at the instance of the court. When
any such order is passed by the court, which has the
jurisdiction to do so, then such order should not even be
interfered with in exercise of a higher court's revisional
jurisdiction. Such orders would normally be of an advantage
to achieve the ends of justice. It was clarified, without
ambiguity, that the Magistrate, in exercise of powers under
Section 173(8) of the Code can direct CBI to further
investigate the case and collect further evidence keeping in
view the objections raised by the appellant to the
investigation and the new report to be submitted by the
investigating officer, would be governed by sub-section (2)
2
(2013) 5 SCC 762
17
to sub-section (6) of Section 173 of the Code. There is no
occasion for the Court to interpret Section 173(8) of the
Code restrictively. After filing of the final report, the learned
Magistrate can also take cognizance on the basis of the
material placed on record by the investigating agency and it
is permissible for him to direct further investigation.
Conduct of proper and fair investigation is the hallmark of
any criminal investigation .
43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled
canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts
have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct “further
investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even
“reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation”
are synonymous expressions and their result in law would
be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the
power of transferring investigation from one agency to
another, provided the ends of justice so demand such
action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this
power has to be exercised by the superior courts very
sparingly and with great circumspection.
44. We have deliberated at some length on the issue that
the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code
do not control or limit, directly or impliedly, the width of the
power of the Magistrate under Section 228 of the Code.
Wherever a charge-sheet has been submitted to the court,
even this Court ordinarily would not reopen the
investigation, especially by entrusting the same to a
specialised agency. It can safely be stated and concluded
that in an appropriate case, when the Court feels that the
investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper
direction and that in order to do complete justice and where
the facts of the case demand, it is always open to the Court
to hand over the investigation to a specialised agency.
These principles have been reiterated with approval in the
judgments of this Court in Disha v. State of Gujarat [(2011)
13 SCC 337 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 628] , Vineet
Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC
(Cri) 307] , Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi [(1996) 6
SCC 500] and Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006] .
18
45. The power to order/direct “reinvestigation” or “de novo”
investigation falls in the domain of higher courts, that too in
exceptional cases. If one examines the provisions of the
Code, there is no specific provision for cancellation of the
reports, except that the investigating agency can file a
closure report (where according to the investigating agency,
no offence is made out). Even such a report is subject to
acceptance by the learned Magistrate who, in his wisdom,
may or may not accept such a report. For valid reasons, the
court may, by declining to accept such a report, direct
“further investigation”, or even on the basis of the record of
the case and the documents annexed thereto, summon the
accused.”
3
12. Yet again in “ Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. ,
this Court has held thus in paras 75, 79 & 80 :
” 75. That the extraordinary power of the constitutional
courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India
qua the issuance of direction to CBI to conduct investigation
must be exercised with great caution, was underlined
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] as adverted to
hereinabove. Observing that although no inflexible
guidelines can be laid down in this regard, it was
highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a
matter of routine or merely because the party has levelled
some allegations against the local police and can be invoked
in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or
where the incident may have national and international
ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for
doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental
rights.
79. The precedential ordainment against absolute
prohibition for assignment of investigation to any impartial
agency like CBI, submission of the charge-sheet by the
3
(2016) 3 SCC 135
19
normal investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit
in an exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in
order to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation
and to consolidate the confidence of the victim(s) and the
public in general in the justice administering mechanism, is
thus unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a
measure, however, can by no means be a matter of course
or routine but has to be essentially adopted in order to live
up to and effectuate the salutary objective of guaranteeing
an independent and upright mechanism of justice
dispensation without fear or favour, by treating all alike.
80. In the decisions cited on behalf of CBI as well, this
Court in K. Saravanan Karuppasamy [ K. Saravanan
Karuppasamy v. State of T.N. , (2014) 10 SCC 406 : (2015)
1 SCC (Cri) 133] and Sudipta Lenka [ Sudipta Lenka v. State
of Odisha , (2014) 11 SCC 527 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 428] ,
recounted the above propositions underpinning the primacy
of credibility and confidence in investigations and a need for
complete justice and enforcement of fundamental rights
judged on the touchstone of high public interest and the
paramountcy of the rule of law.”
13 . It was argued by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel
for the respondents that the appellants are not entitled to
maintain these appeals as the present is the case where only
an investigation has been directed. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned
senior counsel for the appellants would submit that the
appellants’ legal right to defend themselves at the preliminary
stage also is well recognized and if they apprehend of them
being unnecessarily involved in a criminal prosecution, they are
entitled to maintain this appeal to challenge the CBI
investigation into the matter.
20
14 . It is settled in the matter of Union of India & Anr.
4
vs. W.N. Chadha , that a prospective accused has no right to
be heard at the stage of registration of FIR. Although the
appellants have not succeeded in their challenge to the lodging
of the FIR, having abandoned the challenge by withdrawing Crl.
M.P No. 2642 of 2020 in the High Court, yet, we are referring
to the principles so as to deal with the argument raised by Mr.
Lekhi. The following is held in para 92:
“ 92. More so, the accused has no right to have any say as
regards the manner and method of investigation. Save
under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the
Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right
during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on
a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a
final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a
proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till
the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the
case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence
is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said
offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by
the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have
participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of
process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 of
the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry
but cannot participate. There are various judicial
pronouncements to this effect, but we feel that it is not
necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time,
we would like to point out that there are certain provisions
under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an
opportunity of being heard under certain specified
circumstances.”
4
(1993) Supp (4) SCC 260
21
15 . The principle laid down in W.N. Chadha (supra) has
been reiterated in Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah vs. State
5
of Gujarat & Ors. , wherein the following has been held in
para 10:
10. …….It is required to be noted that, as such, even the
“
proposed accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have any say at
this stage in an application under Section 173(8) CrPC for
further investigation, as observed by this Court in W.N.
Chadha [Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4)
SCC 260 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 1171] ; Narender G.
Goel [Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6
SCC 65 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 933] and Dinubhai Baghabhai
Solanki [Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat,
(2014) 4 SCC 626 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 384] . In Dinubhai
Baghabhai Solanki [Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of
Gujarat, (2014) 4 SCC 626 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 384] after
considering another decision of this Court in Sri Bhagwan
Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha
Maharaj v. State of A.P. [Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada
Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P.,
(1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047] , it is observed
and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8) CrPC to
suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused
before any direction for further investigation is made.
In Sri Bhagwan Samardha [Sri Bhagwan Samardha
Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State
of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047] , this
Court in para 11 held as under : (Sri Bhagwan Samardha
case [Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata
Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC 740 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 1047] , SCC p. 743)
“11. In such a situation the power of the court to
direct the police to conduct further investigation
cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section
173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the
accused before any such direction is made. Casting of
5
(2020) 4 SCC 22
22
any such obligation on the court would only result in
encumbering the court with the burden of searching
for all the potential accused to be afforded with the
opportunity of being heard. As the law does not
require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with
such an obligation.”
16 . Thus, the law settled on the above score answers the
argument raised by Mr. Lekhi. Therefore, we are of the
considered view that once an FIR is registered and
investigation has taken place, direction for an investigation by
the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or
accused. The matter for entrusting investigation to a particular
agency is basically at the discretion of the Court.
17 . At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the
observation made by this Court in the matter of Mandakini
6
Diwan & Anr. vs. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. ,
wherein this Court directed for investigation by the CBI in a
matter, like the present one, where at an earlier stage the
police had filed a closure report treating it to be a case of
suicide. The following has been held by this Court in paras 8,
20 & 21:
6
(2024) SCC online SC 2448
23
“ 8. According to the appellants, the police filed the closure
report treating it to be a case of suicide. The appellants
repeatedly continued to represent to the authorities for a
fair investigation after registering first information report.
All the complaints made by the appellants to the authorities
did not result in the registering of FIR against Respondent
7. All the complaints though were inquired into but were
ultimately closed as a result of the influence exerted by
Respondent 7. Till date, neither FIR has been registered on
the several complaints made by the appellants nor a fair
investigation has been carried out in order to find out the
truth.
*
20. In Awungshi Chirmayo v. State (NCT of Delhi), this
Court directed CBI to hold enquiry in the criminal matter
related to murder of two cousins due to certain puzzling
facts including inconclusive post-mortem report. It held as
follows: (SCC pp. 572-73, paras 14-18)
“14. In a seminal judgment reported as State of
W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights , this Court has discussed in detail inter alia
the circumstances under which the constitutional
courts would be empowered to issue directions for
CBI enquiry to be made. This Court noted that the
power to transfer investigation should be used
sparingly, however, it could be used for doing
complete justice and ensuring there is no violation
of fundamental rights. This is what the Court said
in para 70: (SCC p. 602)
‘70. … 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
24
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.’
15. The powers of this Court for directing further
investigation regardless of the stage of
investigation are extremely wide. This can be done
even if the charge-sheet has been submitted by the
prosecuting agency. In Bharati Tamang v. Union of
India , this Court allowed the writ petition filed by
the widow of late Madan Tamang who was killed
during a political clash and directed investigation
by CBI which would be monitored by the Joint
Director, CBI. The following observations were
made in para 44: (SCC p. 601)
‘44. … Whether it be due to political rivalry or
personal vengeance or for that matter for any
other motive a murder takes place, it is the
responsibility of the police to come up to the
expectation of the public at large and display
that no stone will remain unturned to book the
culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt
with under the provisions of the criminal law of
prosecution. Any slackness displayed in that
process will not be in the interest of the public
at large and therefore as has been pointed out
by this Court in the various decisions, which
we have referred to in the earlier paragraphs,
we find that it is our responsibility to ensure
that the prosecution agency is reminded of its
responsibility and duties in the discharge of its
functions effectively and efficiently and ensure
that the criminal prosecution is carried on
effectively and the perpetrators of crime are
duly punished by the appropriate court of law.’
16. This Court has expressed its strong views about
the need of Courts to be alive to genuine
grievances brought before it by ordinary citizens as
has been held in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v.
State of Gujarat .
25
17. It is to observe that unresolved crimes tend to
erode public trust in institutions which have been
established for maintaining law and order. Criminal
investigation must be both fair and effective. We
say nothing on the fairness of the investigation
appears to us, but the fact that it has been
ineffective is self-evident. The kith and kin of the
deceased who live far away in Manipur have a real
logistical problem while approaching authorities in
Delhi, yet they have their hope alive, and have
shown trust and confidence in this system. We are
therefore of the considered view that this case
needs to be handed over to CBI, for a proper
investigation and also to remove any doubts in the
minds of the appellants, and to bring the real
culprits to justice.
18. In view of the discussion made above, the
order of the Delhi High Court dated 18-5-2018,
dismissing the prayer of the present appellants to
transfer the investigation to CBI is hereby set
aside. The appeal is hereby allowed and we direct
that CBI to hold enquiry in the matter. The case
shall be transferred from SIT to CBI. The SIT,
which has so far conducted the investigation in the
matter, will hand over all the relevant papers and
documents to CBI for investigation. After a
thorough investigation, CBI will submit its complete
investigation report or charge-sheet before the
court concerned as expeditiously as possible.”
21. It is true that power to direct CBI to conduct
investigation is to be exercised sparingly and such orders
should not be passed in a routine manner. In the present
case, the aggrieved party has raised allegations of bias and
undue influence on the police machinery of the State of
Chhattisgarh. Coupled with the fact that the thorough, fair
and independent investigation needs to be carried out to
find out the truth about the whole incident and in particular
about the ante-mortem injuries. We are of the view that
such a direction needs to be issued in the present case. ”
26
18. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the
deceased was closely associated with DKA, a member of
Parliament and Chairman of Temple Sri Venkateswara Swamy
Temple (Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam). The deceased, a
close confidant of DKA, was a successful realtor and had huge
assets in and around Bangalore. His mysterious death was
preceded by execution of two different Wills, one in favour of
his wife/respondent no. 1 and the other in favour of respondent
No. 12 which was registered after his controversial death.
There are civil proceedings relating to mutation and declaration
of title as well as the allegations concerning forgery of stamp
papers. The learned Magistrate while directing further
investigation and the High Court, under the impugned order,
has highlighted the glaring defects in the investigation which
we have avoided to reiterate so that it does not influence the
CBI investigation. However, the fact remains that the truth
surrendering the death of K. Raghunath needs to be settled
after a complete and fair investigation by the CBI which, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, has rightly been
directed by the High Court.
27
19 . We, accordingly, affirm the order of the High Court
and dismiss the appeals. The CBI shall conduct the
investigation within a period of 08 months and the State of
Karnataka shall render all possible assistance to the CBI to
make a fair investigation into the crime. The entire papers shall
be handed over by the concerned police to the CBI within 15
days. If the CBI proceeds to file chargesheet, the same shall be
submitted before the jurisdictional CBI Court in the State of
Karnataka.
………………………………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
.......……………………………….J.
(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.