SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1765

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dinesh Maheshwari, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Petitioner
Versus
Deshraj Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9275 of 2019
Decided On : 12-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjay Jain, ASG, Ms.Ashima Gupta, Mr.Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Mr.Kumar Parimal, Mr.Anukalp Jain, Mr.Adit Khorana, Mr.Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent:Mr.J.M.Sharma, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Nitin Singh, Mr.Ankur Yadav, AOR, Mr.Aakash Kumar, Mr.Ardhendumuli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Mr.Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR, Ms.Ishani Sharma, Mr.Shantwanu Singh, AOR

Headnote:(A) Central Bureau of Investigation Act - Transfer of Investigation - The High Court's decision to transfer the investigation was not supported by detailed reasons; however, circumstances warranting CBI involvement were noted. (Paras 2, 4)

(B) Transfer of investigation should be exercised with caution and not as a matter of routine.

Facts of the case:
The Supreme Court reviewed a High Court order transferring an investigation to the CBI, with concerns raised regarding the lack of cogent reasons for this transfer.

Findings of Court:
Despite acknowledging insufficient reasoning in the High Court's order, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and stressed the need for a timely investigation.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the transfer of investigation to CBI was justified given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court indicated that transfer of investigation should be approached cautiously but opted not to overturn the High Court's decision due to the unique facts of the case.

Result: Petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. hearing and review of materials (Para 1)
2. court's reluctance to interfere with investigative transfer (Para 2)
3. decision on petition and expectations for cbi (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER :

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following order:

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

2. Though we do not find detailed and cogent reasons in the order impugned, for which the High Court felt persuaded to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI') and though we do not disagree with the submissions of the learned ASG appearing for the petitioner-CBI, ably assisted by Ms.Ashima Gupta, learned counsel that such transfer of investigation should not be a matter of course and such an order should only be passed with great circumspection but, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, we feel disinclined to interfere with the order impugned.

3. The petition, seeking special leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the time that has elapsed, we would expect the CBI to assign a reasonable priority to this matter and to complete the investigation at the earliest.

5. The entire record shall be transmitted by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to the petitioner-CBI within a week from today.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top