Magistrate Can't Direct Further Investigation By Police After Rejecting Closure Report Filed By HC Constituted SIT: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by the family members of a deceased and set aside the order passed by the magistrate court only insofar as they direct further investigation to be conducted by HAL Police Station after rejecting the B report filed by the Special Investigation Team.

Further the court transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which shall conduct further investigation and submit its report to the concerned Court within an outer limit of six months.

Case Details:

Petitioners M. Manjula, family members of the deceased K.Raghunath, had approached the court seeking further investigation to be conducted by a different Investigating Officer (HAL Police Station), other than the one who had filed a report before the concerned Court. The petitioners further sought a direction for handing over of the entire matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation for a re-investigation/ fresh investigation or further investigation.

Findings:

The bench noted that a coordinate bench of the High Court had directed constitution of a SIT to probe the case after the petitioners had approached the court following their complaint alleging the murder of K Raghunath was turned down by the police.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Babu @ Moses v. State, (2015) 8 SCC 774, the bench said,

"The part of the order where the learned Magistrate directs further investigation to be conducted by the HAL Police Station is rendered without jurisdiction and requires to be obliterated, as power of superior Court cannot be exercised by the learned Magistrate."

As regards the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI made by the petitioner, the bench noted the power to transfer the investigation must be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.

It observed, "An investigation could be transferred to the CBI when it becomes imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of Investigating Agencies. It would also emerge that it is not for the complainant, based upon certain allegations against the investigating agency, to choose the agency which he would want to investigate in a given case unless such circumstances exist."

Further it said, "In the case at hand, the investigation at the outset, was sought to be conducted by the jurisdictional police. For over a year nothing had happened. It is then the petitioner had knocked the doors of this Court alleging that the accused who are in a position to influence the jurisdictional police are not permitting investigation to be held into the crime. It is then, this Court directed the constitution of a Special Investigating Team. The report submitted by the team is not found favour at the hands of the learned Magistrate. Therefore, what becomes necessary is, consideration of the prayer of the petitioner for reference of the matter to the CBI bearing in mind."

Noting the allegations made by the petitioners in their complaint about the alleged murder having been committed the bench said, "It becomes a case where further investigation as is directed by the learned Magistrate stands to reason."

It then opined, "In the light of the aforesaid facts and the lacunae, glaring enough they are, and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, it becomes a case where the issue will have to be thrashed out by conduct of a further investigation, not from the hands of the very Special Investigation Team or direction to constitute a second Special Investigation Team, but to be conducted by an independent agency – The Central Bureau of Investigation, as constitution of another Special Investigating Team would be of no avail, since there is already a report of the Special Investigating Team, which is not found favour even with the learned Magistrate, on the presence of the aforesaid lacunae in investigation."

It then held, "In the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances as analysed hereinabove, further investigation to unravel the truth is necessary, as the prime concern and endeavour of a Court of law is to secure justice, on the basis of true facts, which ought to be unearthed through a competent investigating agency."

Further it said, "Merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local Police of conduct of shoddy investigation would not by itself constitute a sufficient ground for transfer of investigation to the CBI. But, the case at hand is not the one that brings about such circumstances. Elaborate lacunae are pointed out by the learned senior counsel with regard to the investigation conducted by the Special Investigating Team. There cannot be Special Investigating Team-1 which has already conducted an investigation to again move to another Special Investigating Team to make it Special Investigating Team-2 as they form part of the local police."

It added, "It is trite law that Article 21 embraces both the life and liberty of the accused as well as the interest of the victim, his or her near and dear ones, as well as of the community at large. A life is lost in the case at hand, it is therefore the victims who have lost their breadwinner are fighting for justice and conduct of a fair trial. It is by now a well settled principle of law, judicially recognized, that fair trial includes, fair investigation and these form facets, inter alia of Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If on these contours the facts in a given case demands transfer of investigation, to the hands of an impartial agency, it should be considered, in furtherance of a call to render complete justice and protection of human rights, such reference would become imperative particularly in the wake of ever overwhelming cause of justice."

Case Title: M.MANJULA v STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.7784 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

Date of Order: 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate HASHMATH PASHA, FOR Advocate NASIR ALI for petitioner; DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG A/W K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R6 TO R8; P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.P.P., FOR R9; S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R10, R11 AND R14; PELIKAL K.ARJUN, ADVOCATE FOR R12 AND R13

Click Here To Read/Download Order