Unnecessarily Procrastinating Trial: Bombay HC Dismisses Plea By Jiah Khan's Mother Seeking Fresh Investigation Into Actress' Death

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed Rabia Khan's petition seeking fresh investigation into her daughter and Bollywood actress Jiah Khan's suicide by the stating that CBI has carried out a 'fair, impartial, and transparent' probe into the case in a 'thorough' manner.

The court further said that Rabia Khan is trying to delay the trial by repeatedly filing petitions having identical grounds and prayers.

"Repeated insistence of Petitioner to procure a finding from the Court that death of the victim in this case was homicidal and not suicidal is a clear indication of procrastinating the trial, especially when her substantive rights have not been foreclosed", the court held.

A division bench of Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice M. N. Jadhav dismissed the writ petition filed by Rabia Khan on 12 September 2022.

The court noted that Sooraj Pancholi's trial before the Special Judge (CBI) for abetment of suicide has started and examination of some prosecution witnesses has already been completed.

In 2013, Rabia Khan filed an FIR accusing Jiah Khan's boyfriend actor Sooraj Pancholi of abetment of suicide after Jiah Khan was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her room.

In 2014, Rabia Khan prayed for directions to form a Special Investigation Team and to enable American agency Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate the case from the point of view of homicidal death of Jiah Khan.

The court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to carry out further investigation considering whether it was a case of suicide or homicide.

CBI reinvestigated the case and in 2015 filed a supplementary charge sheet accusing Sooraj Pancholi of abetment of suicide.

In 2016, Rabia Khan approached the High Court seeking identical reliefs alleging that there were several discrepancies in the investigation conducted by the police and the CBI.

The court dismissed the petition stating that CBI had ascertained whether it was a case of suicide or homicide from various angles of investigation. It is now up to the trial court to arrive at its own conclusion on the basis of evidence.

Petitioner filed an application before the trial court for certain documents to be considered as a part of the charge sheet and sought summons to Blackberry India to produce the chat between Pancholi and Jiah Khan. The trial court allowed the petitioner to produce the documents but did not grant her other prayers.

Petitioner approached the High Court in 2018 challenging the trial court order. In December 2018 the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Then the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against this order which was dismissed.

The courts in all these cases observed that the petitioner can invoke appropriate jurisdiction of the criminal court including sections 216 and 319 of Cr.P.C. if any evidence comes on record indicating different charges against Pancholi during the trial.

In December 2019, petitioner filed an application before the trial court seeking further investigation by forming an SIT under the CBI Director. The trial court rejected the application. Petitioner challenged this order in the present case on the same grounds as previous petitions and sought similar reliefs.

The court said that the petitioner suppressed the fact that she had approached the Supreme Court in 2019 and it had declined to interfere.

Petitioner produced a report titled 'Legal Review into the Death of Miss Nafisa Ali Rizvi' authored by a United Kingdom law firm SCARMANS before the court.

The legal review report questions the objectivity of the investigation and states that there are basic errors made by the investigating authorities leaving open the possibility that victim's death was not a suicide.

The court noted that the investigation is complete and trial is underway. 15 prosecution witnesses have already deposed before the trial court. Deposition of the petitioner herself is ongoing.

The court was 'aghast' and 'shocked' to read the legal review report. The court said that the report attempts to deliver a verdict even before the trial is over. "At places in the report, there are adverse comments on the judgment and orders delivered by this Court which are not appreciated and deprecated by us. We cannot take countenance of such a report, especially in the light of various decisions rendered by this Court (in the present matter itself), the trial court and the Supreme Court", the court said.

The court deprecated the petitioner for procuring a biased report from a law firm which has no authority in India.

The court said that Rabia Khan procured the report only after repeatedly failing to procure court orders as per her desire. The conduct of petitioner of repeatedly filing similar proceedings amounts to unnecessarily procrastination and delay the of the trial, according to the court.

"It appears that the petitioner wants the court to return a finding that the death of the victim was homicidal and not suicidal even before the trial as over", the court observed.

The court noted that the investigation and expert opinion obtained by CBI shows that CBI conducted investigation as per direction of the court to consider the possibility of homicidal death.

"Prima facie it does appear that a totally impartial fair and transparent investigation is made by the CBI in a thorough manner", the court held.

Every angle of the medical and circumstantial evidence was considered with a fresh angle to ascertain whether it can be a case of homicide, the court observed.

The court said that it does not have jurisdiction for directing the FBI in the United States. It also noted that the counsel for the petitioner failed to address whether the Court has powers to issue directions to the FBI.

The court said the petitioner's counsel feigned ignorance when asked whether the petitioner could take recourse to sections 216 and 319 of Cr.P.C.

The court strongly deprecated the repeated filing of proceedings by the petitioner for the same cause of action. The court was inclined to award exemplary costs against the petitioner, but refrained from doing so at the pleading of her counsel.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 5609 of 2021

Case title – Rabia Khan v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 358 

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment