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

2024 Supreme(Guj) 192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ILESH J. VORA, J.
Kailashkumar Shankarlal Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Criminal Application (Direction - To Transfer Investigation To CID) No. 1013 of 2022
Decided on : 04-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR RJ GOSWAMI
For the Respondent: MR RC KODEKAR, MS CM SHAH

The court emphasized that the power to transfer investigation to CBI or any independent State Agency must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and only in exceptional cases to ensure a fair and just investigation.

Headnote:

Transfer of Investigation - Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code, Sections 498A, 306, 323, 294B, 114, Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 3, 7 - The court considered the request for transfer of investigation to CBI or State CID Agency in connection with the FIR registered for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court analyzed the contentions of the applicant and the responses of the investigating agencies, and concluded that the case did not warrant transfer of investigation to CBI or any independent State Agency.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought transfer of investigation to CBI or State CID Agency in connection with the FIR registered for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging lapses in the investigation conducted by the State Police.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigation was undertaken in a proper manner and the necessary and material evidence had been collected. It also noted that the trial court had the authority to add or alter charges, and the applicant's request for addition of charges was pending for adjudication.

Issues: The main issue was whether the case warranted transfer of investigation to CBI or any independent State Agency due to alleged lapses in the investigation conducted by the State Police.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the case did not fall under the exceptional circumstances that would warrant transfer of investigation to CBI or any independent State Agency. It emphasized that the trial court had the authority to add or alter charges, and the applicant's request for addition of charges was pending for adjudication.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for transfer of investigation to CBI or any other independent State Agency, directing the trial court to decide the application for addition and alteration of charges on its own merits, in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

1. By invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant – original informant is seeking transfer of investigation to CBI or State CID Agency in connection with the FIR registered with Khadia Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 294B, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Deceased Lakshmi Piraram was married to accused Piraram Bansilal and marriage was solemnized on 29.06.2020. Deceased went to matrimonial home. Accused are residing in a joint family. On 14.05.2021, she gave a birth to a baby boy Vedansh. On 21.10.2021, deceased Lakshmi passed away and according to prosecution case, she committed a suicide by hanging at her matrimonial home. The brother of the deceased viz. Kailash Chauhan, lodged an FIR for the said offences on 22.10.2021.

Pursuant to the FIR, chargesheet on 20.12.2021, came to be filed for the aforesaid offences against six persons, who are husband and his relatives. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Ahmedabad and the same has been culminated into Sessions Case No.31 of 2022. The Sessions Court has framed the charge for the said offences and accordingly, the matter before the Court of Sessions is fixed for recording of material witnesses.

3. In the aforesaid facts, the brother of the deceased – applicant Kailash Chauhan being dissatisfied and aggrieved with the investigation undertaken by Khadiya Police Station, has preferred present application, seeking transfer of investigation to CBI or CID Crime.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr.Brijesh Trivedi, Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent - CBI. The reports submitted by the Investigating Agency dated 07.12.2023 and 14.12.2023 are taken on record.

5. Mr.Brijesh Trivedi, learned counsel has submitted that the entire investigation was conducted in a casual manner and the manner in which it was carried out raises serious suspicion and doubt on the credibility of the State Investigation Agency. That during the course of investigation, representations in details were submitted twice, contending the following aspects in relation to the investigation of the case:

(a) The applicant brother and other family members after receiving the message went to the matrimonial house of the deceased where they were informed that the deceased has committed the suicide. The deceased was found on the floor as her dead body was removed and laid it down on the floor by the deceased. The applicant has taken necessary photographs of the deceased as well as ceiling of the room with hanging “dupatta” which was allegedly used by the deceased to commit a suicide. The brother found external injuries on the body of the deceased. Due to some altercation with the accused, cell phone of the husband accused was fallen down and the same was taken by the applicant brother and after seeing the contents of the cell phone he found some photographs of woman with whom the husband was having extramarital affairs. That, the accused have destroyed the necessary evidence by removing the dead body from the ceiling and the cell phone of the accused, despite being shown to the police, no any investigation on this direction was being undertaken by the police. That, the accused failed to inform the police immediately for the alleged suicide, which shows their guilty mind. That, on arrival of the police on the scene of offence, the brother of the deceased informed the police about the conduct of the accused and requested the police to collect necessary evidence. That, the FSL Officer who came at the place, had casually inspected the site. That, the brother applicant had informed the FSL Officer that due to length of dupatta, it is highly impossible to commit suicide and considering the external injuries on the neck, etc. the theory of suicide

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