PROF. K.V. RAJENDRANversusSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI & ORS.

                     [2013] 9 S.C.R. 199


                  PROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN                              A
                               v.
 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID SOUTH ZONE,
                  CHENNAI & ORS.
         (Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2013)
                      AUGUST 21, 2013                               B

       [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, SUDHANSU JYOTI
     MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.]

     INVEST/GA TION:                                                c
     Transfer of investigation to CBI - ·Held: Supreme Court
or High Court can exercise its constitutional powers for
transferring an investigation from the State investigating
agency to any other independent investigating agency like           0
CBI only in rare and exceptional cases - Where the
investigation has already been completed and charge sheet
has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should not reopen
the investigation and it should be left open to the\court, where
the charge-sheet has been filed, to proceed with the matter
in accordance with Jaw - In the instant case, the Jacts and         E
circumstances do not present special features warranting
transfer of investigation to CBI - Besides, the incident occurred
15 years back and final report uls 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already
been submitted before the competent criminal court - It is
open to the Magistrate to accept the final report or to reject      F
the same and to direct further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C.
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 136 and 226 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173(2) and 173(8)..

     The appellant; an Associate Professor in a College,            G
filed a complaint against the Revenue Divisional Officer
fRDO') and other officials alleging that on 26.8.1998, the
said RDO and other persons brutally tortured him for
making a complaint regarding the smuggling of teakwood
                           199                                      H
    200      SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A in that area and that on the following day, he was handed
  over to the local Police. Subsequently, he was remanded
  to judicial custody, and was released on bail. Howe_ver,
  no case was registered. The appellant then filed a
  criminal petition which was disposed of by the High
B Court directing the transfer of investigation to CBI. In the
  SLP filed by the DSP, SBCID, the Supreme Court set
  aside the order of the High Court giving liberty to the
  appellant to file a fresh criminal petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
  for transferring the investigation from the State police
c authorities to CBI, depending upon subsequent events.
  The appellant was summoned by the DSP, SBCID on
  7.7.2010 and again on 25.10.2010 and his statements
  were recorded. Being unsatisfied with the investigation
  conducted by the SBCID, the appellant filed another
  criminal petition, which was dismissed by the High Court.
0
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 This Court or High Courts can exercise
  their Constitutional powers for transferring an
E investigation from the State investigating agency to any
  other independent investigating agency like CBI only in
  rare and exceptional cases, e.g. where high officials of
  State authorities are involved; the accusation itself is
  against the top officials of the investigating agency
F thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and
  further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil
  confidence in the investigation or where the investigation
  is prima facie found to be tainted/biased. Where the
  investigation has already been completed and charge
G sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should
  not reopen the investigation and it should be left open
  to the court, where the charge sheet has been filed, to
  proceed with the matter in accordance with law. [para 6
  and 10] [207-D-E; 209-B-D]

H
PROF. KV RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 201
           CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI
     State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of        A
Democratic Rights, 2010 (2) SCR 979 =AIR 2010 SC 1476;
Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, 2011 (3) SCR 597 = AIR 2008
SC 907; Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan & Ors., AIR
2011 SC 1254; Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors., 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 251 = (1992) 1 sec 397; R.S.        B
Sodhi v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 38; Punjab and
Haryana Bar Association, Chandigarh through its Secretary
v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 915 = AIR
1994 SC 1023; Vineet Narain & Ors., v. Union of India & Anr.,
1996 (1) SCR 1053 =AIR 1996 SC 3386; Union of India &           C
Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi & Ors., 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 393
=AIR 1997 SC 314; Disha v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2011
(9) SCR 359 =AIR 2011 SC 3168; Rajender Singh Pathania
& Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 2011 (10) SCR 260 =
(2011) 13 SCC 329; and State of Punjab v. Davincler Pal         D
Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc. 2011 (15) SCR 540 = AIR 2012 SC
364; Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2010 (1)
SCR 991 = (2010) 2 SCC 200 - referred to.

     1.2 In the instant case, firstly, the facts and
circumstances do not present such special features              E
warranting transfer of investigation to CBI, and that too,
at a belated stage where the final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
has already been submitted before the competent
criminal court. The allegations are only against the then
RDO who might have been transferred to various districts        F
during these past 15 years. Secondly, various other
police officials might have investigated the case and it is
difficult to assume that every police official was under his
influence and all of them acted with malafide intention.
Further, in view of the earlier order of this Court dated       G
2.9.2008, no subsequent development has been brought
to the notice of the court which could warrant
interference by superior courts and transfer the
investigation to CBI. Besides, the Magistrate has not
passed any order as regards the final report submitted          H
    202       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013) 9 S.C.R.


A   u/s 173(2) CrPC. The appellant can still take appropriate
    steps, as it is always open to the Magistrate to accept the
    final report or reject the same and he has the power to
    direct further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. [para 11
    and 14] [210-B-C; 211-B-D]
B
                         Case Law Reference:
          1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 251     referred to      para 6
          AIR 1994 SC 38              referred to      para 6
c         1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 915     referred to      para 6
          1996 (1) SCR 1053           referred to      para 6
          1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 393     referred to      para 6

D         2011 (9) SCR 359            referred to      para 6
          2011 (10) SCR 260           referred to      para 6
          2011 (15) SCR 540           referred to      para 6
          2010 (1) SCR 991            referred to      para 7
E
          2010 (2) SCR 979            referred to      para 8
          2011 (3) SCR 597            referred to      para 8
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
F No. 1167 of 2013.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2011 of the
    High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No. 9639 of
    2011.
G       K. Ramamurthy, Nagendra Rai, Mukul Gupta, Kamini
    Jaiswal, M. Yogesh Kanna, Sriram, A. Santha Kumaran, A.
    Radhakrishnan, Syed Tanweer Ahmed, Anjali Chauhan, B.V.
    Balaram Das for the appearing parties.

H         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,               203
             CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI
     DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferrea · . A
against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.0.P. No. 9639 of
2011, by way of which the High Court has rejected the prayer
of the appellant to transfer the investigation of his case/
complaint to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter B
referred to as the 'CBI').

     2. The case has a chequered history as the matter has
moved from the court of the Magistrate to this Court time and
again. Facts and circumstances necessary to adjudicate upon             C
the controversy involved herein are that:

     A. The appellant, who is an Associate Professor in
Physics in the Presidency College, Chennai, went to his village
on 26.8.1998. At about 11.00 P.M., approximately ten people
headed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter              D
referred to as the 'RDO'), forcibly took him in a government jeep
and brought him to the Taluk office and enquired about why he
had given a false complaint regarding the smuggling of
teakwood in that area. The then RDO and other officials treated
him with utmost cruelty and caused severe injuries all over his         E
body and then obtained his signatures on blank papers which
were filled up as directed by the then RDO. On the next day,
he was handed over to the local Police Inspector along with the
statement purported to have been written by the officials
concerned.                                                              F
      B. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on
27.8.1998 at 10.30 A.M. and he was remanded to judicial
  custody. His request to the Judicial Magistrate in regard to
  medical examination of the injuries which had been caused to
. him was rejected. The appellant was kept in Sub Jail, Poraiyar,       G
  wherein he was treated by the jail doctor on 28.8.1998. On
  being released on bail, the appellant got treatment of his injuries
  in a private hospital.

      C. The appellant filed a complaint against the said RDO           H
    204      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 9 S.C.R.

A and other officials. The said complaint was also sent to the office
  of Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State, the Director General ·of -
  Police and other officials, alleging the brutal torture caused to
  him by the then RDO. The case was entrusted for investigation
  to Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID, Nagapattinam. A
B confidential report was forwarded to higher officials by the said
  DSP in this regard. However, no progress could be made in
  the investigation and no case was registered in respect of the
  complaint of the appellant.

        D. The appellant approached the High Court of Madras by
C filing Crl. O.P. No. 19352/1998 with the prayer to direc~ the
  registration of First Information Report (FIR) based on his
  complaint. In view of the fact that a confidential report of Deputy
  Superintendent of Police, SBCID revealed that the preliminary
  enquiry was conducted in a proper manner, the High Court did
D not transfer the investigation to CBI, however, the petition was
  allowed vide order dated 1.3.2001 issuing the direction to
  register a case.

       E. The DSP, SBCID filed an application i.e. CrLM.P. No.
E 3713/2001 before the High Court in the disposed of case i.e.
  Crl.0.P. No. 19352/1998 stating that there was no post of DSP,
  SBCID on the date of the order as the same had been
  abolished, so proper directions needed to be issued. In the
  meanwhile, the appellant also filed another petition to transfer
F the case to CBI. Both the said applications were heard together
  and the order dated 1.10.2004 was passed modifying the
  earlier order dated 1.3.2001 for transferring the investigation
  to CBI.

         F. Aggrieved, the DSP, SBCID, preferred Criminal Appeal
G No. 1389 of 2008 before this Court. The said criminal appeal
  . was disposed of by this Court vide a detailed judgment and
    order dated 2.9.2008. It was observed that by the first order
    dated 1.3.2001, the High Court had declined to handover the
    investigation to CBI, therefore, it was not proper for the High
H
PROF. KV RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 205
 CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.}
Court to pass a fresh order in a petition that had been disposed     A
of, directing again the investigation to be made by the CBI. This
view was taken in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
the ·cr.P.C.'). This Court also took note of the fact that it was
not the application by the appellant to transfer the case to CBI.    B
Thus, the said order dated 1.10.2004 transferring the
investigation to CBI by the High Court was set aside. However,
this Court kept it open that the appellant could prefer a fresh
criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for transferring the
investigation from the State police authorities to CBI, depending    c
upon subsequent events. In such an eventuality, it would be
open to High Court to entertain such application and decide
the same in accordance with law.

     G. The appellant was summoned by the DSP, SBCID on
7.7.2010 and again on 25.10.2010 and his statements were             D
recorded. Being un- satisfied with the investigation conducted
by the SBCID, the appellant filed Crl. O.P. No. 9639 of 2011
in April 2011 before the High Court, seeking transfer of the
investigation to CBI. The said application has been dismissed
vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.12.2011.                    E

     Hence, this appeal.

      3. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant, has submitted that there was no
                                                                     F
justification for the High Court to reject the application seeking
transfer of the investigation from the State investigating agency
to CBI as the State investigating agency did not conduct the
investigation properly as its investigation has been tainted and
biased, favouring the then RDO. The SBCID threatened the
witnesses and recorded their version under coercion.                 G
Moreover, inordinate delay had been there in concluding the
investigation. The High Court could not be justified in making
such an observation that even if a shabby investigation had
been made, it could not be a ground to change the investigating
agency. Further, there was no material to show as observed           H
    206       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013)9 S.C.R.


A   by the High Court, that the appellant had improved his case
    stage by stage. Even if the investigation was at the verge of
    conclusion or already stood concluded, it is permissible in law
    to change the investigating agency. Thus, the appeal deseNes
    to be allowed.
B
         4. On the contrary, Shri K. R~mamurthy and Shri Nagendra
    Rai learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State
    and respondent no. 3, the then RDO, have opposed the appeal
    contending that there was no subsequent development on the
C   basis of which the transfer of investigation could be sought to
    CBI. Moreover, it is not a fit case to transfer to CBI. The
    appellant is pursuing a trivial issue since 1998 and had been
    moving from one court to another for the last 15 years. The
    liberty was given to the appellant by this Court vide order dated
    2.9.2008 to move the High Court for transfer of investigation
D   to CBI only on the basis of subsequent events, if any. In fact
    there has been no such subsequent event, which could warrant
    such a course of action. This Court has laid down certain
    parameters for transferring the case to CBI and the. present
    case does not fall within the ambit thereof. The State police has
E   already investigated the matter and filed the final report under
    Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned. The
    appellant has already filed the protest petition and it is for the
    learned Magistrate to decide the case in accordance with law.
    The Magistrate is not bound to accept the report so submitted
F   by the investigating agency, he may take cognizance and also
    direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thus,
    there is no justification to transfer the case to CBI ·and the
    appeal is liable to be rejected.

G       Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing on
  behalf of the CBI, supported the case of the respondents and
  further submitted that the CBI has a shortage of manpower and
  is already overburdened. More so, the present case does not.
  present special features warranting transfer to CBI for
H investigation.
PROF. KV RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 207
 CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

     5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the    A
learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

     6. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This
Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what
circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the
                                                                  8
State investigating agency to any other independent
investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power
of transferring such investigation must be in rare and
exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order
to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the C
public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks
credibility and it is necessary for having "a fair, honest and
complete investigation", and particularly, when it is imperative
to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State
agencies. Where the investigation has already been completed
and charge sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts D
should not reopen the investigation and it should be left open
to the court, where the charge sheet has been filed, to proceed
with the matter in accordance with law. Under no circumstances,
should the court make any expression of its opinion on merit
relating to any accusation against any individual. (Vide: E
Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1992)
1 SCC 397; R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC
38; Punjab and Haryana Bar Association, Chandigarh through
its Secretary v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1023;
 Vineet Narain & Ors., v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1996 SC F
3386; Union of India & Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi & Ors., AIR
 1997 SC 314; Disha v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 2011 SC
3168; Rajender Singh Pathania & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
 & Ors., (2011) 13 SCC 329; and State of Punjab v. Davinder
Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc., AIR 2012 SC 364).                  G

     7. In Rt1babbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors.,
(201 O) 2 sec 200, this Court dealt with a case where the
accusation had been against high officials of the police
department of the State of Gujarat in respect of killing of      H
    208       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A persons in a fake encounter and the Gujarat police after the
  conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet
  before the competent criminal court. The Court came to the
  conclusion that as the allegations of committing murder under
  the garb of an encounter are not against any third party but
B against the top police personnel of the State of Gujarat, the
  investigation concluded by the State investigating agency may
  not be satisfactorily held. Thus, in order to do justice and instil
  confidence in the minds of the victims as well of the public, the
  State police authority could not be allowed to continue with the
c investigation when allegations and offences were mostly against
  top officials. Thus, the Court held that even if a chargesheet has
  been filed by the State investigating agency there is no
  prohibition for transferring the investigation to any other
  independent investigating agency.

D      8. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection
  of Democratic Rights, Al R 2010 SC 14 76, a Constitution
  Bench of this Court has clarified that extraordinary power to
  transfer the investigation from State investigating agency to any
  other investigating agency must be exercised sparingly,
E cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes
  necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
  investigation or where the incident may have national and
  international ramifications or where such an order may be
  necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the
F fundamental rights.

        (See also: Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan & Ors.,
    AIR 2011 SC 1254).

      9. This Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP,
G AIR 2008 SC 907 held:

          "This Court or the High Court has power under Article 136
          or Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI. That,
          however should be done only in some rare and
H         exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with
PROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 209
 CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI [DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

     a large number of cases and would find it impossible to         A
     properly investigate all of them."

                                             (Emphasis added)

      10. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to
the effect that the Court could exercise its Constitutional powers   B
for transferring an investigation from the State investigating
agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI
only in rare and exceptional cases. Such as where high officials
of State authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is
against the top officials of the investigating agency thereby        C
allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it
is so necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the
investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to
be tainted/biased.
                                                                     D
     11. The case is required to be examined in view of
aforesaid settled legal propositions.

     The matter originated in September 1998 and a period of
15 years has already been lapsed. During this period,
respondent no. 3, the then RDO, against whom the allegations         E
are made, might have been transferred to various districts of th
 State. The allegations of malafide had bePn made against the
police in general without impleading any person by name.
During the period of 15 years, investigation could have been
carried out by many police officers. It cannot be presumed that      F
each of them could be influenced by the respondent no. 3. This
Court had also given the liberty to the appellant to approach
the High Court for transferring the investigation to CBI provided
there is sufficient material available subsequent to the earlier
orders passed by the High Court. Even if the investigating           G
agency did not proceed promptly and was in deep slumber for
a long time, the appellant also did not make any attempt to
move the court for issuance of appropriate direction to transfer
the case to the CBI. It was at a belated stage when the High
Court was approached. In the meanwhile, the High Court came          H
    210       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A to the conclusion that the investigation of the case has already
  been concluded and, therefore, did not transfer the case to CBI.
  Admittedly, the final report has already been filed and the
  appellant is fully aware of those facts. If he has not already taken
  the appropriate steps to meet the present situation, he can still
B do so as the learned Magistrate concerned, as we are
  informed, has not yet passed any final order. It is always open
  to the Magistrate to accept the final report or reject the same
  and has the power to direct further investigation under Section
  173(8) Cr.P.C.
c       12. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment
  and order had, in fact, taken note of the earlier judgment of this
  Court dated 2.9.2008 and rejected the application observing
  that the subsequent development would not warrant the transfer
  of investigation. The High Court has further taken note of the
D fact that the investigation had been properly conducted by the
  State investigating agency, 46 witnesses had been examined
  and a large number of documents had been filed and the
  investigating agency had concluded the investigation in respect
  of allegations labelled by the appellant against the alleged
E accused.

       13. The High Court has further taken note of the earlier
  judgment of this Court dated 2.9.2008 wherein this Court had
  given liberty to the appellant to move a fresh application under
F Section 482 Cr.P.C., if it is so required in view of the
  "subsequent events having been taken place". The relevant part
  of the order of this Court reads as under:

          'We make it clear once again that if a fresh criminal petition
          under Section 482 of the Code is filed by the respondent
G         for transferring the investigation from State Police
          authorities to CBI after bringing certain subsequent
          events that had taken place after the disposal of the
          original criminal petition if there be any, it would be
          open for the High Court to entertain such application if it
H         is warranted and decide the same in accordance with law
PROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 211
 CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

       for which we express no opinion on merit."                     A
                                              (Emphasi::: added)

      14. In sum and substance, firstly, the facts and
circumstances of the instant case do not present special
features warranting transfer of investigation to CBI, and that too,   B
at such a belated stage where the final report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted before the
competent criminal court. The allegations are only against the
then RDO who might have been transferred to various districts
during these past 15 years: Similarly various other police            C
officials might have investigated the case and it is difficult to
assume that every police official was under his influence and
all of them acted with malafide intention. In view of the earlier
order of this Court dated 2.9.2008, no subsequent development
has been brought to the notice of the court which could warrant       o
interference by superior courts and transfer the investigation to
CBI.

       15. In view of the above, we do not see any cogent reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
                                                                      E

R.P.                                          Appeal dismissed.