Summary
The father and brother of a deceased realtor challenged a Karnataka High Court order under Article 226 directing the CBI to conduct further investigation into his death, which the local police had closed as suicide and an SIT had ended with a 'B' report that the Magistrate rejected. The Court held that the appellants could not question the Magistrate's direction to register the FIR after withdrawing their s.482 CrPC petition against it, that a prospective accused has no right to be heard on or to challenge a direction for further investigation, and that on the facts the High Court rightly entrusted the investigation to the CBI; appeals dismissed with an eight-month timeline.
Issues
- Whether the appellants could challenge the Magistrate's jurisdiction to direct registration of an FIR on a private complaint for an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session, having withdrawn their petition under s.482 CrPC against that order.
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing the CBI to conduct further investigation after the SIT had filed a 'B' report.
- Whether a prospective accused is entitled to be heard on, or to maintain an appeal against, a direction for further investigation by the CBI.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellants' petition under s.482 challenging the Magistrate's order of 02.03.2020 directing registration of the FIR was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.12.2020. That order became final and binding on the parties, so the legality of registration of the FIR was not open to question in any subsequent proceeding. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Articles 226 and 32, Constitution of IndiaConstitutional courts possess extraordinary power to direct a CBI investigation, including transferring investigation from one agency to another and ordering further, fresh or de novo investigation even after a chargesheet or closure report; the power is exercised sparingly, in exceptional situations where it is necessary to lend credibility and instil confidence in the investigation or to do complete justice (Vinay Tyagi, Pooja Pal, Mandakini Diwan followed). (¶¶ 11, 12, 17, 18)
- Section 173(8), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Further investigation after a report has been forwarded to the Magistrate may be directed; nothing in the provision obliges the court to hear the accused before directing it (W.N. Chadha, Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah, Sri Bhagwan Samardha applied). (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Having withdrawn their s.482 CrPC petition against the order directing registration of the FIR, the appellants cannot later contend that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction under ss.190, 202 or 174 CrPC to direct registration of an FIR for an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session; the issue attained finality and the Court declined to examine it. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The High Court and the Supreme Court, as constitutional courts, may direct a CBI investigation and may transfer investigation from one agency to another or order further, fresh or de novo investigation even after a chargesheet or closure report, where the facts demand it to do complete justice and enforce fundamental rights; the power is to be exercised sparingly and not as a matter of routine merely because allegations are made against the local police. (¶¶ 11, 12, 17)
- A prospective accused has no right to be heard at the stage of registration of the FIR or before a direction for further investigation under s.173(8) CrPC. Once an FIR is registered and investigation has taken place, a direction for investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused; the choice of investigating agency is essentially for the court. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The deceased was a close confidant of a Member of Parliament with large assets; his mysterious death was preceded by two different Wills, one in favour of his wife and the other in favour of a relative and registered after his death, with civil proceedings and allegations of forged stamp papers pending, and both the Magistrate and the High Court had noted glaring defects in the investigation. The truth about his death needs to be settled by a complete and fair CBI investigation, which the High Court rightly directed. The Court refrained from discussing the material in detail so as not to influence the investigation. (¶¶ 7, 18)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court order dated 03.09.2022 affirmed. CBI to complete the investigation within 8 months with all assistance from the State of Karnataka; the police concerned to hand over the entire papers to the CBI within 15 days; any chargesheet to be filed before the jurisdictional CBI Court in Karnataka.