Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ramachandraiah & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M. Manjula & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2179 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10449 of 2022)
With
D.A Srinivas & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M. Manjula & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2180 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 10515 of 2022)
Decided On : 23-04-2025
Key Points: - The Court affirms that High Court has authority to direct CBI investigations in exceptional circumstances to ensure justice and public confidence (!) (!) . - The Magistrate can direct further investigation under section 173(8) and with aid of section 156(3) of CrPC, and such directions are not to be routinely exercised; accused may not have a right to be heard at registration of FIR in all contexts (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Extraordinary power to direct CBI investigation should be exercised cautiously, not routinely, in exceptional situations where complete justice and fundamental rights require it (!) (!) (!) . - Earlier decisions cited (Vinay Tyagi, Hemant Dhasmana, Pooja Pal, W.N. Chadha, etc.) establish that such directions aim to provide credibility in investigations and may be used even after charge-sheet if necessary (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court directs CBI to investigate within eight months and requires state cooperation; orders transferred from SIT to CBI for fair investigation (!) . - The case involved a private complaint alleging murder; SIT gave a B-report; High Court directed CBI; CBI registered FIR and conducted raids (!) (!) (!) . - The appeals were upheld to affirm High Court’s mandamus directing CBI; transfer to CBI is justified to ensure fair investigation due to credibility concerns (!) (!) . - Provisions referenced include Art. 226, Art. 32, CrPC Ss. 190(1)(a), 202(1)/(2), 482, 156(3), 173(2), 173(6), 173(8), and IPC sections 120B, 302, 34, 421, 464, 467, 468, 471, 474 (!) . - The Court notes that a prospective accused generally has no right to participate at FIR registration, but rights may arise in challenging improper investigations; quashing petitions were withdrawn in this context (!) (!) . - Mandated delivery of case papers to CBI within 15 days and completion of investigation with chargesheet to jurisdictional CBI Court if filed (!) .
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals would call in question, the impugned Judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the High Court of 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 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. Adikeshavalu,1[‘DKA’], 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 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 favour of 1st 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 father. The 2nd respondent went to the guest house situated in 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 t
The High Court has the authority to direct CBI investigations in exceptional cases to ensure justice and uphold public confidence in the legal system.
It is trite law that Article 21 embraces both the life and liberty of the accused as well as the interest of the victim, his or her near and dear ones, as well as of the community at large.
Judicial intervention in criminal investigations is warranted to ensure fair process and public trust when local authorities are ineffective or biased.
The Court emphasized the wide powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of an FIR, direct proper investigation, and monitor the same. It also highlighted the need for ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternate remedies before approaching the High Court for the registration of an FIR and the direction of a proper inve....
The court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
Victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial – Mere filing of charge-sheet and framing of charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation/re-investigation/de ....
The court can direct a CBI investigation when local investigations are compromised, ensuring fairness and justice in legal proceedings.
It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
