MP High Court rejects bid to restore CBI probe into liquor contractor’s suicide case

The petitioner sought review of the Division Bench’s order dated 17 July 2026 allowing respondent No. 6’s writ appeal and setting aside the Single Judge’s direction to transfer the investigation into the petitioner’s son’s death to the CBI.

The Single Judge had directed the CBI to register an FIR and investigate allegations that an Excise Department officer had extorted money from the deceased, who later died by suicide.

The petitioner argued that the Division Bench had overlooked the exceptional circumstances, including the alleged coercion and a video recording made by the deceased, and had wrongly relied on alternative remedies under the CrPC/BNSS.

Respondent No. 6 opposed review on the ground that it sought a rehearing of issues already decided.

Whether the petitioner established a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, including an error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient reason.

Whether the grounds raised sought impermissibly to reopen the merits of the writ appeal and obtain appellate reconsideration through review.

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC permits review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to the specified grounds.

An apparent error must be patent and self-evident; an error requiring extended reasoning, or a merely erroneous decision, is not enough.

Review is not an appeal in disguise and does not permit rehearing, reappreciation of evidence, or correction of a decision merely because another view is possible.

The Court relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat for these principles.

The order also referred to Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 200 CrPC in describing the alternative remedies considered in the writ appeal.

The Court found that the petitioner’s complaints about the treatment of the alleged video, the need for an independent investigation, and the availability of alternative remedies concerned the merits of the writ appeal rather than a patent error in its order.

It concluded that the Division Bench had considered the submissions and that the review petition sought appellate reconsideration.

The Court also noted that the factual and legal grounds had already been discussed in the writ appeal; their reconsideration would therefore exceed the limited review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

The review petition was dismissed.