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 situations to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

By filing of this writ petition, the petitioner being an accused in FIR No. 310 of 2020, which was originally registered under Sections 376, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as “the Penal Code” for brevity) against one Dr. Pranav Pandya and Smt. Shailbala Pandya at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, in which a final report was filed by the Investigating Officer. However, the learned Magistrate, in seisen, did not accept the same and directed further investigation, which led to filing a charge sheet against seven other persons under Sections 323, 365, 368, 195, 504 and 120B. However, charge sheet has yet not been filed against the present petitioner and the investigation is still open as against her (She is a citizen of United States of America).

2. The petitioner has prayed that an impartial investigation may be conducted by independent agency, preferably the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI” for brevity) and also issue a mandamus directing that no coercive steps against her shall be taken in pursuance to the FIR referred to above.

3. The facts of the case, at this stage, as borne out from the records as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel are depicted chronologically as follows:

On 05.05.2020 an FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 506 and 34 of the Penal Code at the behest of the alleged victim was registered in a Police Station at Delhi which was transferred to Haridwar Police Station on 09.05.2020 and the FIR was registered as FIR N0. 310 of 2020 on 23.06.2020. On the petition filed by the one Vivek Shukla in PIL No. 97 of 2020, this Court passed an order for police protection to the victim (whose name has been withheld). On 27.05.2020 the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for brevity). On 02.06.2020, the statement of the victim (Respondent NO.4) was recorded under Section 164 of the Code. In both the statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Code, the prosecutrix supported the allegations made in the FIR. On 16.10.2020, Final Report bearing No. 01 of 2020 dated 10.10.2021 was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, inter alia, stating that no concrete evidence was found from the allegations levelled by the victim could be ascertained. The petitioner claims that such filing of the Final Report/Closer Report is in violation of several principles of investigation and clear ignorance of the statement under Section 161 and 164 of the Code. On filing of the Final Report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar issued notice to the victim/complainant. The victim appeared before the Court and stated that she is satisfied with the Final Report. On 06.02.2021 an affidavit was filed by the prosecutrix before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, by taking a stand that she has not been raped or violated. On 24.07.2021 and 17.08.2021, two additional affidavits were filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar stating further that she stated that the accused persons, who have already been charge sheeted in the meantime, and the present petitioner forced her, abducted her and her mother to give a statement against the accused in that case alleging the offence of rape and offence of molestation. On 08.09.2021 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar did not accept the Final Report and directed for further investigation. That order has not been challenged by anybody. The prosecution filed charge sheet on 21.05.2022 and 22.07.2022 against seven persons who had already appeared before the learned Magistrate and charges have been framed. However, the investigation of the case against the present petitioner is still continuing.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case the Investigating Agency has not acted fair