The impact of change in government on legal proceedings and the need for decisions to be based on statutory provisions, reasonableness, and public interest.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the first respondent to register and investigate the complaint dated 13.6.2018.)

Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr.C.Ariyama Sundram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

2. The above criminal original petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to direct the first respondent to register and investigate the complaint dated 13.6.2018.

3. The brief facts of the case are as stated hereunder :

(i) This petition was disposed of on 12.10.2018 after contest by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the first respondent to hand over investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and further directing the CBI to conduct the preliminary inquiry within a period of three months. It was made clear in the said order dated 12.10.2018 that if the preliminary inquiry disclosed any cognizable offence, the CBI was further directed to register a case and proceed further in accordance with law.

(ii) The said order dated 12.10.2018 became the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2022. The said criminal appeals, which were filed before the Apex Court by the aggrieved persons namely both the respondents herein, were disposed of by the Apex Court by a common judgment dated 03.8.2022.

(iii) For proper appreciation, the relevant portions in the said common judgment of the Apex Court are extracted as hereunder :

"4. At the outset, both senior counsel appearing for the parties agree that it was no one''s case before the High Court that the investigation should be transferred to the CBI. In fact, it is clear from the record that the original writ petition filed by respondent No.1 was to register a case and investigate the complaint dated 13.06.2018 against the appellant. Subsequently, respondent No.1 sought a new relief by way of a rejoinder filed before the High Court. The relief sought by the respondent No.1 in rejoinder was to direct an impartial investigation by any other Competent Police Officer or team of Police Officers and also for the High Court to monitor the investigation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed to the fact that the preliminary enquiry report, which had been submitted in a sealed cover before the High Court, was not even considered by the High Court. In fact, the High Court specifically noted as follows :

''17. ....Learned Advocate General having stated so, that the respondent had submitted a negative report/closure report not taking cognizance, there is no necessity for this Court to open the sealed cover filed before this Court''. (emphasis supplied) However, despite not even looking into the enquiry report or the case investigation record, the High Court went on to make certain observations relating to the fairness of the investigation.

6. Apart from the above, it appears that the High Court did not even seek the impleadment of the appellant, who is the main accused in the matter, before transferring the investigation to the CBI.

7. This Court has consistently held that while the power to transfer the investigation of cases to the CBI or other such specialized bodies exists, it must be used sparingly, only in rare and exceptional cases [See K.V. Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480].

8. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of these matters, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court so far as it directs the respondent No.2 to hand over all the case files and material to the Joint Director, C.B.I. to c