The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking transfer of an investigation in an alleged case of murder from the Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the ground of a dearth of impartiality in the impugned investigation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, after analysing the evidence and the investigation’s shortcomings, arrives at a decision that CBI shall take over the case for a fresh investigation. The Court observed that, “it is never too late to search for truth.”
The case arose from the murder of petitioner’s son by a person with whom he was in a relationship. On taking cognizance of the complaint, the Police initially refused to register the FIR on the assumption that it was merely a suicide. Upon making several requests to the police officials, the Petitioner ultimately filed a petition under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM). The CMM, after perusing the entire record, was satisfied that a cognizable offence had been made out and accordingly directed the registration of the FIR. Subsequently, CMM made several orders, identifying the investigation to be just a formality and full of lapses.
The Petitioner argued that the prosecution erred in portraying the unfortunate incident as a simple case of suicide with no element of homicide, thereby necessitating her approach to the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Petitioner opposed that the assumption forming the bedrock of the whole process of investigation has manifestly resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court examined several discrepancies in police investigation as highlighted by the Petitioner The Court found it perplexing that despite the fact that the mobile phones of the accused and the deceased were seized, they were not taken up to the forensics for retrieval of data and scientific analysis. Another issue flagged was that all photographs which were taken of the crime scene were not placed on record. Regarding the alleged “cause of death,” which the prosecution portraying it as suicide, the Court expressed serious concern, noting that the prosecution had completely failed to inform either the Delhi High Court or the CMM of any basis for such a conclusion. The Court further observed that no material was produced to suggest that the deceased was suffering from depression or exhibited any suicidal tendencies.
The Court acknowledged the well-settled principle that constitutional courts must exercise exceptional caution and strict circumspection before directing that an investigation be transferred from the local police to the CBI or any equivalent agency. Such powers, it emphasised, are to be invoked sparingly. However, relying on Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578, the Court held that when the material on record demonstrates that an investigation is ineffective, fundamentally deficient, or incapable of inspiring confidence, constitutional courts are duty-bound to step in to ensure fairness and impartiality, either by ordering a fresh investigation or by transferring the probe to an independent agency.
The court further refuted the Respondent’s contention that the investigation cannot be transferred after the filing of the charge sheet or the closure report. Referring to Dharampal vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 160 and Pooja Pal vs. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135, Neetu Kumar Nagaich vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2020) 16 SCC 777, the court observed:
“…stage of the trial is neither a bar nor an impediment for exercising the constitutional power, which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation…the investigations can be transferred even after filing of the charge sheet or the Closure Report.”
Accordingly, in light of these principles and the deficiencies identified in the record, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the CBI to undertake a fresh investigation.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner- Senior Advocate Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal along with Mr. Nitin Mehta, Ms. Sowjanya Shankaran, Mr. Siddharth Satija, Mr. Arpit Rawat, Mr. Chirag Singh, Ms. Anuka Bachawat, Mr. Chirag Singh, Mr. Akash Sachan and Ms. Yukta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.) alongwith Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Manan Wadhwa and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advocates for the State/Respondent-1.
Insp. Gulshan Yadav, Crime Branch, Insp. Adith Lily, Insp. Ghanshyam, Insp. Kuldeep Singh and Dr. Jagjeet Singh, SSO/CFD, FSL, GNCTD, Rohini, Delhi.
Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP alongwith Ms. Muskan Narang and Mr. Vijay Misra, Advocates for CBI.
