Gudalure M.J. Cherian And Ors. v.

Union Of India, (1992) 1 SCC 397

“7. It is not necessary for us to go into various facts and circumstances mentioned by the
petitioners in the writ petition in support of their apprehensions that the investigation in the case
by the police was not fair and the victims are not likely to get justice by the authorities in the
State of Uttar Pradesh. Four accused persons have been arrested in connection with the crime
and the trial against them is likely to commence. The investigation having been completed by the
police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for, ordinarily, to reopen the
investigation specially by entrusting the same to a specialised agency like CBI. We are also
conscious that of-late the demand for CBI-investigation even in police cases is on the increase.
Nevertheless - in a given situation, to do justice between the parties and to instill confidence in
the public mind - it may become necessary to ask the CBI to investigate a crime. It only shows
the efficiency and the independence of the agency.

8. It is obvious from the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Police that the Nuns who are
victims of the tragedy are not coming forward to identify the culprits in an identification parade
to be held by the Magistrate. The petitioners on the other hand, have alleged that the four
persons who have been set up as accused by the police are not the real culprits and the police is
asking the Sisters to accept the four arrested persons as culprits. In the face of these averments
and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that ends of
justice would be met if we direct the CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offences
committed between the night of July 12 and 13, 1990 as per the FIR lodged at Police Station,
Gajraula.

...

10. We, therefore, direct the CBI to take up the investigation of the case immediately. We further
direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad and the Station House Officer, Gajraula
Police Station to assist the CBI in conducting the investigation. The State of Uttar Pradesh
through its Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary is further directed to provide all assistance
to the CBI in this respect.”

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira
Banerjee in the matter of Dr Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. Etc., 2020
SCC OnLine SC 1031, while directing the CBI to conduct a further investigation of the
case, noted that:

“25...…The investigating officer has a duty to investigate when information about the
commission of a cognizable offence is brought to their attention. Unfortunately, this role is being
compromised by the manner in which selective leaks take place in the public realm. This is not
fair to the accused because it pulls the rug below the presumption of innocence. It is not fair to
the victims of crime, if they have survived the crime, and where they have not, to their families.
Neither the victims nor their families have a platform to answer the publication of lurid details
about their lives and circumstances. Having said this, we prima facie reject the insinuation that
the FIR had not doubted or referenced the suicide note, despite its publication in the news
media.

31.....The conduct of the investigating authorities from the stage of arriving at the scene of
occurrence to the filing of the charge-sheet do not inspire confidence in the robustness of the
process. A perusal of the charge-sheet evinces a perfunctory rendition of the investigating
authorities’ duty by a bare reference to the facts and the presumption under Section 304B of the
IPC when the death occurs within seven years of the marriage...It would indeed be a travesty if
this Court were to ignore the glaring deficiencies in the investigation conducted so far,
irrespective of the stage of the proceedings or the nature of the question before this Court. The
status of the accused as propertied and wealthy persons of influence in Agra and the conduct of
the investigation thus far diminishes this Court’s faith in directing a further investigation by the
same authorities. The cause of justice would not be served if the Court were to confine the scope
of its examination to the wisdom of granting anticipatory bail and ignore the possibility of a trial
being concluded on the basis of a deficient investigation at best or a biased one at worst.”

Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad, (2013) 5 SCC 762:

“43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence
that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226
of the Constitution of India to direct “further investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and even
“reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and “reinvestigation” are synonymous expressions and
their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power of
transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand
such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the
superior courts very sparingly and with great circumspection.”

Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160

“24. Be it noted here that the constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or
investigation by some other investigating agency. The purpose is, there has to be a fair
investigation and a fair trial. The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair
investigation. We are absolutely conscious that direction for further investigation by another
agency has to be very sparingly issued but the facts depicted in this case compel us to exercise
the said power. We are disposed to think that purpose of justice commands that the cause of the
victim, the husband of the deceased, deserves to be answered so that miscarriage of justice is
avoided. Therefore, in this case the stage of the case cannot be the governing factor.

25. ….If a grave suspicion arises with regard to the investigation, should a constitutional court
close its hands and accept the proposition that as the trial has commenced, the matter is beyond
it? That is the “tour de force” of the prosecution and if we allow ourselves to say so it has
become “idée fixe” but in our view the imperium of the constitutional courts cannot be stifled or
smothered by bon mot or polemic.…”
 Babubhai Jamnadas Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 9 SCC 610

“50. In fact, in Kashmere Devi's case (supra), this Court had directed the Magistrate to exercise
powers under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct the C.B.I. to make a proper and thorough
investigation in an independent and objective manner and to submit an additional charge-sheet,
if circumstances so required, in accordance with law.

51. There is, therefore, no doubt that in appropriate cases, the Courts may monitor an
investigation into an offence when it is satisfied that either the investigation is not being
proceeded with or is being influenced by interested persons.

52. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the orders of the High Court impugned in
these appeals and we direct the Investigating Authorities to proceed in the manner indicated by
the High Court in its impugned orders. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.”

Bharati Tamang v Union of India, (2013) 15 SCC 578 :

“43. Having noted the above features in the case of the prosecution and considering the
grievances expressed by the petitioner in the writ petition, the prayer of the writ petitioner is
four-fold. The petitioner seeks for the issuance of certiorarified mandamus to quash Charge-
sheet No. 76 of 2010 dated 30-8-2010 by CID, Homicide Squad, West Bengal along with
Supplementary Charge-sheet No. 04 (03) dated 20-8-2011 by CBI in GR Case No. 148 of 2010;
for the issuance of a mandamus for appointing an independent Special Investigation Team
comprising of senior officials headed by a competent person or authority of impeccable
credentials to conduct the investigation de novo into the conspiracy and gruesome murder of the
deceased Madan Tamang on 21-5-2010 and alternatively direct for further/fresh investigation
by an officer of the level of DIG of CBI or for direction to entrust the investigation to the
National Investigation Agency.
44. Having noted the various relevant features, we find force in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the proceeding of the case by the prosecution either by the State
Police or by CID and after it was taken over by CBI was not carried out in a satisfactory
manner. The very fact that after the occurrence took place on 21-5-2001 there was serious lapse
in apprehending many of the accused and the absconding of the prime accused Nicol Tamang
and Dinesh Subba till this date disclose that there was total lack of seriousness by the
prosecution agency in carrying out the investigation. The circumstances pointed out on behalf of
the petitioner, namely, the absconding of many of the accused between May 2010 and February
2013 was a very relevant circumstance which gives room for suspicion in the mind of this Court
as to the genuineness with which the case of the prosecution was being carried out. The
submission that the murder took place due to political rivalry cannot be a ground for anyone,
much less, the investigation agency to display any slackness or lethargic attitude in the process
of investigation. Whether it be due to political rivalry or personal vengeance or for that matter
for any other motive a murder takes place, it is the responsibility of the police to come up to the
expectation of the public at large and display that no stone will remain unturned to book the
culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt with under the provisions of the criminal law of
prosecution. Any slackness displayed in that process will not be in the interest of public at large
and therefore as has been pointed out by this Court in the various decisions, which we have
referred to in the earlier paragraphs, we find that it is our responsibility to ensure that the
prosecution agency is reminded of its responsibility and duties in the discharge of its functions
effectively and efficiently and ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on effectively and
the perpetrators of crime are duly punished by the appropriate court of law.
45. Inasmuch as the petitioner only seeks for handling of the case of murder of her deceased
husband by the prosecuting agency, namely, CBI here with utmost earnestness against all the
accused who were involved in the crime, we feel that by issuing appropriate directions in this
writ petition and by monitoring the same the grievances expressed by the petitioner can be duly
redressed and the interest of the public at large can be duly safeguarded.
…
46.3. The investigation shall continue to be carried out by CBI but shall be monitored closely by
Mr Rajiv Singh, Joint Director, CBI.
46.4. The investigation by CBI shall ensure that all required evidence are gathered by
proceeding to make further investigation in order to ensure that no stone is left unturned in
proceeding with the case of the prosecution and all accused involved in the offence are brought
before court for being dealt with in accordance with law.”
46.5. The trial which was commenced in the absence of the arrest of the remaining accused shall
not be proceeded with until CBI concludes its further investigation and submit its comprehensive
report before the transferred court, namely, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the
Calcutta Civil and Sessions Court and such comprehensive report shall be filed expeditiously
preferably within three months from the date of pronouncement of this order.

Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan, (2011) 3 SCC 758 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 75:

“46. The Division Bench of the High Court also committed an error in holding the order
appointing CBI to investigate for the purpose of submitting report to the learned Single Judge
and not to investigate for the alleged offence in accordance with law in place of State CID and
hence conclusion of such investigation by CBI cannot form the basis of charge-sheet in the
criminal trial. The Division Bench has also not considered the judgment dated 14-8-2008 passed
by the learned Single Judge in terms whereof, the Court permitted CBI to proceed in accordance
with law for filing charge-sheet before the competent court under Section 173(2) of the Code
and was also granted liberty to conduct further investigation before it actually files the charge-
sheet at any point it may consider necessary in the interest of justice. Neither the learned Single
Judge directed CBI to submit the report as charge-sheet, as has been held erroneously by the
learned Division Bench, nor was CBI stopped from conducting further investigation in the
matter before it actually filed the charge-sheet at any point it may consider necessary in the
interest of justice. It is evident that CBI at interim order stage was directed to investigate the
case and at the final order stage was directed to submit charge-sheet after making further
investigation.
...
48. Under the scheme of the Code, investigation commences with lodgment of information
relating to the commission of an offence. If it is a cognizable offence, the officer in charge of the
police station, to whom the information is supplied orally has a statutory duty to reduce it to
writing and get the signature of the informant. He shall enter the substance of the information,
whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, in a book prescribed by the State in
that behalf. The officer-in-charge has no escape from doing so if the offence mentioned therein is
a cognizable offence and whether or not such offence was committed within the limits of that
police station. But when the offence is non-cognizable, the officer in charge of the police station
has no obligation to record it if the offence was not committed within the limits of his police
station. Investigation thereafter would commence and the investigating officer has to go step by
step.
51. In view of the same, the Division Bench failed to appreciate the order dated 16-10-2007
passed by the learned Single Judge directing CBI to investigate into the cause of unnatural
death of Rizwanur Rehman. We have already noted that as per Section 2(h) of the Code
“investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Code for collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer. The direction to conduct investigation requires registration of an
FIR preceding investigation and, therefore had to be treated as casting an obligation on CBI to
first register an FIR and thereafter proceed to find out the cause of death, whether suicidal or
homicidal. In order to find out whether the death of Rizwanur Rahman was suicidal or
homicidal, investigation could have been done only after registration of an FIR. Therefore, CBI
was justified in recording FIR on 19-10-2007 in terms of the order dated 16-10-2007 passed by
the learned Single Judge.”