Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Smt. M. Manjula W/o Late K. Raghunath - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondents
Writ Petition No.7784 Of 2022 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 03-09-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 200, 173(8), 482, 200, 190(1)(a), 202, (1), 173(3), (6), (8), 482, 311 and 391 – Indian penal Code, 1860 - Sections 34, 120B, 302, 467, 468, 421, 474, 302, 464 and 471 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 165 - Special Police Act - Section 6 - Constitution of India , 1950 - Article 226, 20, 21, 32, 13 - Gujarat High Court Rules - Rule 51 - Properties - Suicide - Investigation to be Conducted by a Different Investigating Officer - Whether prayer of petitioners to entrust investigation to hands of CBI merits any acceptance - Whether learned Magistrate was justified in directing further investigation to a different Investigating Officer other than one who had investigated the crime - Whether accused will have to be heard in a case where a direction is issued for further investigation, either by concerned Court under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. or by this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. [Para 24]
Finding of the Court: It is not for victim to claim or choose investigating agency he wants to get it investigated and that is not tenor of prayer in case at hand - Prayer is that on two occasions – one by Police and one by Special Investigating Team, there has been shoddy investigation which did sound acceptance in light of aforesaid circumstances and contextual facts, as narrated hereinabove - Merely because a party has levelled some allegations against local Police of conduct of shoddy investigation would not by itself constitute a sufficient ground for transfer of investigation to CBI - But, case at hand is not one that brings about such circumstance - If on these contours facts in a given case demands transfer of investigation, to hands of an impartial agency, it should be considered, in furtherance of a call to render complete justice and protection of human rights, such reference would become imperative particularly in wake of ever overwhelming cause of justice - Contention of petitioner is that status of accused being so powerful, are in a position to wield abundant influence upon any investigating team of State, this submission would further wane out Courts faith in directing further investigation by SIT-1 or by constitution of a SIT-2 - Being guided by parameters laid down by Apex Court in afore-quoted judgments to transfer case to CBI, I deem it necessary and expedient to direct further investigation by handing over such investigation to hands of Central Bureau of Investigation- 9th respondent herein - Orders of learned Magistrate passed are set aside only insofar as they direct further investigation to be conducted by HAL Police Station.
Result: Petition allowed in part.
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question orders dated 21-02-2022 and 10-03-2022 passed by the XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in P.C.R.No.51691 of 2020 directing further investigation to be conducted by a different Investigating Officer (HAL Police Station), other than the one who had filed a report before the concerned Court. The petitioners have further sought a direction by way of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing handing over of the entire matter to the 9th respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation for a reinvestigation/fresh investigation or further investigation. ‘B’ report filed before the concerned Court is also called in question.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The 1st petitioner is the wife of one K.Raghunath and the 2nd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. K.Raghunath during his life time is claimed to have owned many immovable properties in different places in the District of Bangalore – a few of them in Devanahalli Taluk, K.R.Puram Taluk and in several other places. It is averred that K.Raghunath was closely related to one D.K.Adikeshavalu, a Member of Parliament who was active in politics in his life time. D.K.Adikeshavalu died on 24-04-2013 and then began the scouting of the properties held by D.K. Adikeshavalu. The children of D.K.Adikeshavalu, in particular respondent No.10 and other close associates of 10th respondent started pressurizing K.Raghunath for transfer of some of the immovable properties owned by him alleging that the source of income of the properties in his name is of their father. It is the case of the petitioners that K.Raghunath resisted their pressure and asserted that he is the absolute owner of the properties acquired from his own source of income coming from real estate and had thus become owner of those properties. The difference between K.Raghunath and the children of the deceased D.K.Adikeshavalu became irreconcilable.
3. In the year 2016, it transpires that an income tax raid took place in the premises of late D.K.Adikeshavalu and the raid and the seizure was attributed to K.Raghunath. It is contended that K.Raghunath executed a Will on 28-01-2016 and got it registered and as per the Will the 1st petitioner was to succeed to all the properties owned by K.Raghunath. K.Raghunath had not disclosed the fact of execution of the Will to any of the private respondents herein during his life time. It appears that when K.Raghunath wanted to sell one of the properties and was about to execute a sale deed on 4-05-2019, the private respondents herein got to know of the same and the 10th respondent and his sister, the 14th respondent herein summoned K.Raghunath to the place of the 14th respondent. The 14th respondent always used to be in the hospital “Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre” located in Whitefield. On being summoned K.Raghunath leaves the house on the afternoon of 02-05-2019 informing the petitioners herein that he was going to meet 10th and 14th respondents. For about two days there was no news about K.Raghunath. On 04-05-2019 two days after he had left the house, at 7.00 a.m., it is contended, that a call comes from K.Raghunath that his life was not safe. Since K.Raghunath had expressed threat to his life, the 1st petitioner sends the 2nd petitioner/son to the house of the 10th respondent to verify about K.Raghunath. The 2nd petitioner goes to the guest house of respondent No.10 situated in Whitefield and enters the guest house and sees his father hanging to a ceiling fan. This was at about 8.30 a.m. On this incident, the entire episode of crime unleashed. A statement of the 2nd petitioner/son, was recorded on the very 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 upo
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 High Court has the authority to direct CBI investigations in exceptional cases to ensure justice and uphold public confidence in the legal system.
If a citizen, who is a defacto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of a cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against influential persons, prays bef....
The magistrate has no power to order further investigation suo motu or on the request of the complainant/informant after cognizance is taken and the accused person appears, nor does the magistrate ha....
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 ....
Criminal Law - Transfer of investigation - Not rarest of rare case - Investigation to be conducted officer above rank of A.C.P.
Point of law : Criminal Law – Transfer of investigation - Transfer of investigation to CBI is not a matter of routine, in extraordinary circumstances by using powers of this Court sparingly in except....
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
