Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
G. Satapathy, J.
Madanmohan Swain and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. – Opp. Parties
CRLMP No.781 of 2022
Decided on 7.8.2024
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 193(9)] – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Further investigation – Charge-sheet submitted against accused for commission of offence under Sections 420/467/468/34 of IPC – Order directing handing over investigation to any other agency other than police should not be passed in favour of party applying for it as a matter of right or in a routine manner merely because party is not satisfied with progress of investigation – Nonetheless, such extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situation, where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigation or where incident may have national or international ramification, otherwise independent agency like CBI or Crime Branch would be flooded with large number of cases and very purpose of creating such agency would be defeated – Petitioners in this case is only dissatisfied with progress of investigation – They have not been able to produce any material to indicate any biasness or malafides of investigating agency – In the circumstance, no direction can be issued either to handover investigation to any independent agency or to entrust investigation to other official – Petition dismissed.(Paras 6, 11 and 12)
Result: Criminal Misc. Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
G. Satapathy, J.—The petitioners by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct OP No.1 to register the written complaint of the petitioners as an FIR or in the alternative to direct other agencies to conduct due and proper investigation under monitoring of this Court or to transfer the investigation of the registered FIR to OP No.1-cum-Central Bureau of Investigation or Economic Offence Wings of Odisha or to any other appropriate independent agency.
2. The short facts involved in this case are on 27.08.2020 the petitioner No.1 who is aged about 64 years had been to the State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Palasuni for redemption of his SBI Mutual Fund for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, but soon after receipt of his application by the Branch Manager, he received a call from Phone No. 7978379071 suggesting him to hold the Mutual Fund by not redeeming the bond till March, 2021. However, on 04.04.2021, the petitioner called in the number and requested for redemption, but on being asked, on 05.04.2021 he met the Branch Manager who introduced to one Subrat Kumar Mohanty to help him for redemption as well as management of the funds. Accordingly, said Subrat Kumar Mohanty installed a App MyCAMS in the mobile of petitioner No.1 and thereafter, the petitioner No.1 applied for redemption of bond. On being advised to deposit the redemption amount in an account, the petitioner No.1 provided a cheque to Subrat Kumar Mohanty and the Branch Manager with endorsement “pay to yourself” for investment in SBI Electoral Bond for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- and in the process said Subrat Kumar Mohanty (OP No.8) transferred a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- on five occasions for the purpose of investment in SBI Electoral Bond and IPO shares and later on, the petitioner No.1 found the bonds/certificates to be forged/manufactures by OP No.8- Subrat Kumar Mohanty and tried to get back his amount of Rs.29,00,000/- from said Subrat Kumar Mohanty, but in vain. Finding no way out, the petitioner and two others who are also being defrauded in same manner lodged an FIR before the IIC, Mancheswar P.S. which came to be registered as PS Case No. 57 of 2022 and the case was investigated into and accordingly, a preliminary charge sheet was filed with arrest of OP No.8, but final charge sheet is still awaited. On the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court for the relief indicated supra.
3. Mr. Suryakanta Dash, learned counsel for the petitioners without disputing about submission of preliminary charge sheet, however strongly argues by submitting that although the legitimate grievance of the petitioners appears to have investigated into, but in fact, there is no progress in the investigation, however, the Investigating Officer is only sitting ideal by submitting preliminary charge sheet after arresting OP No.8 and keeping the investigation open. He further submits that the investigating agency has virtually not done anything after submitting preliminary charge sheet on 26.02.2022, but the hardened money not only of a senior citizen, but also of different persons is involved in a larger conspiracy of financial fraud and none of the staff of the bank have even been examined by the police whose conduct by itself speaks in volume. Mr. Dash by taking this Court through the decision in Pooja Pal vrs. Union of India;(2016) 3 SCC 135 submits that the petitioners cannot become the victim of faulty investigation to reduce the justice a casualty and mere submission of charge sheet would not ipso facto be a prohibitive impediment for directing further investigation/reinvestigation or handing over the investigation to any independent agency. Accordingly, Mr. Dash has prayed to pass necessary direction to hand over the investigation of the case to any impartial agency like CBI or EOW of Orissa.
4. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Pradhan, learned AGA by produci
Further investigation – Order directing handing over investigation to any other agency other than police should not be passed in favour of party applying for it as a matter of right or in a routine m....
The transfer of criminal investigation to an independent agency requires exceptional circumstances; dissatisfaction with the investigation's pace does not warrant such action.
The court emphasized that seeking a fair investigation is a fundamental right, necessitating the transfer of cases to an independent agency when bias or influence is suspected.
Judicial interference in investigations is unwarranted without substantial evidence of bias or procedural impropriety, reaffirming the integrity of investigative processes.
The court emphasized that investigations into corporate fraud must be fair and impartial, directing the transfer of the case to CBI due to inadequate local police handling.
The court can direct a CBI investigation when local investigations are compromised, ensuring fairness and justice in legal proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of thorough examination of allegations before transferring an investigation to CBI and highlighted the petitioner's failure to register an FIR or seek remedy under....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in exercising the power to direct a CBI investigation, emphasizing that it should be sparingly exercised in exceptional situat....
The court ruled that aggrieved parties must seek investigation remedies through the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, rather than filing writ petitions under Article 226.
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
