RAMACHANDRAIAH & ANR.versusM. MANJULA & ORS.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1522 : 2025 INSC 556

                         Ramachandraiah & Anr.
                                  v.
                           M. Manjula & Ors.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 2179 of 2025)
                                 23 April 2025
           [Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court
       was justified in directing for investigation by the CBI.

                                  Headnotes†
       Investigation – CBI investigation – Direction by High Court –
       Deceased was a close confidant of one DKA, a Member of
       Parliament – He owned many immovable properties – After the
       death of DKA, tiff between the deceased and the children of DKA
       (one of the appellants) as regards those properties – Deceased
       died under mysterious circumstances – FIR registered inter
       alia against appellants for murder of the deceased – SIT
       constituted – Magistrate not satisfied with the investigation
       conducted by SIT, directed further investigation by Police –
       Challenged by wife and son of the deceased, High Court
       directed CBI to conduct further investigation – Correctness:
       Held: High Court rightly directed the investigation by CBI – Once
       an FIR is registered and investigation has taken place, direction
       for an investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the
       prospective suspect or accused – The matter for entrusting
       investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion
       of the Court – On facts, the truth surrounding the death of the
       deceased needs to be settled after a complete and fair investigation
       by CBI – Deceased was closely associated with DKA, an MP and
       Chairman of Temple Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple (Tirumala
       Tirupathi Devasthanam) – Deceased was a successful realtor and
       had huge assets in and around Bangalore – His mysterious death
       was preceded by execution of two different Wills, one in favour
       of his wife-respondent no.1 and the other in favour of respondent
       No.12 which was registered after his controversial death – There
       are also civil proceedings relating to mutation and declaration of
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                                1523

               Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


     title as well as the allegations concerning forgery of stamp papers –
     The Magistrate while directing further investigation and the High
     Court, under the impugned order, highlighted the glaring defects in
     the investigation – Order of the High Court affirmed. [Paras 16, 18]

     Constitutional Courts – Power to direct CBI investigation –
     To be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances:
     Held: High Court or the Supreme Court being Constitutional Court
     is vested with extra-ordinary power to direct CBI investigation
     depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case – The
     Constitutional Courts are expectantly and reverently entrusted
     with the duty to serve justice being a sovereign and premiere
     constitutional institution – Power to direct for CBI investigation is
     to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, but,
     when the facts so demand, it is extremely necessary to exercise the
     said power to provide credibility and instil confidence in order to do
     complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. [Para 11]

                               Case Law Cited
     Union of India & Anr. v. W.N. Chadha [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 594 :
     (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 260; Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah v. State of
     Gujarat & Ors. [2020] 3 SCR 1106 : (2020) 4 SCC 22 – relied on.
     Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali [2012] 13 SCR 1005 : (2013) 5 SCC 762;
     Pooja Pal v. Union of India & Ors. [2016] 11 SCR 560 : (2016) 3
     SCC 135; Mandakini Diwan & Anr. v. High Court of Chhattisgarh &
     Ors. [2024] 9 SCR 86 : 2024 SCC online SC 2448 – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                              List of Keywords
     CBI investigation; Direction by High Court for CBI investigation;
     Prospective suspect or accused; Writ of mandamus; Further
     investigation; Mysterious death; D.K. Adikeshavalu, Member of
     Parliament; Close aid; Fabricated Will; Posthumously registered;
     Private Complaint; Special Investigation Team (SIT) Report;
     Investigation lopsided; Constitutional Courts; Extra-ordinary power
     to direct CBI investigation; Prospective Accused; Right to defend at
     preliminary stage; No right to be heard at stage of registration of FIR.
1524                                                       [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2179 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 03.09.2022 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 7784 of 2022
     With
     Criminal Appeal No. 2180 of 2025

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Aman Lekhi, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Advs., Ujjwal Sinha,
     Aniket Seth, G. Balaji, Tomy Chacko, Neeleshwar Pavani,
     Ms. Shaurya Mishra, Ms. Tualia Rehman.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Nishanth Patil, A.A.G., Mukul Rohatgi,
     Dushyant Dave, Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Thakur, Ms.
     Anuparna Bordoloi, Akshat Malpani, Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Ranvijay
     Singh Chandel, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, V. N. Raghupathy, Revanta
     Solanki, Ayush P. Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S, Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
     V V V Pattabhi Ram, Prashant Rawat, Purnendu Bajpai, Rajat Nair,
     Raman Yadav, Mrs. Khushboo Aggarwal, Sharath Nambiar, Paras
     Nath Singh, Rizwan Ahmed, Rizwan Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmed,
     Shakeel Ahmad, Sadashiv, Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, Fatesh
     Kumar Sahu, Devendra Kumar Gupta, Sachin Agarwal, Ms. Mumtaz
     Javed Shaikh, Ms. Pushpa Gupta, Ashish Singh, Ashish Kumar
     Pandey, Junaid Mohd Junaid.

               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   These appeals would call in question, the impugned Judgment dated
     03.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in
     Writ Petition No. 7784 of 2022 whereby the writ petition preferred
     by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed in-part and the orders of
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                       1525

               Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


      Magistrate dated 21.02.2022 and 10.03.2022 passed in P.C.R.No.
      51691 of 2020 were set aside only insofar as they directed further
      investigation to be conducted by HAL Police Station. Furthermore, a
      writ of mandamus was issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation,
      New Delhi/respondent No. 11 to conduct further investigation in Crime
      Nos. 89 of 2020, 148 of 2020 and 7 of 2021 and submit its report to
      the concerned Court within an outer limit of six months.
3.    The appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 10515 of 2022 has been
      preferred by 10th respondent before High Court which would be
      decided along with this appeal.
4.    Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out
      from the pleadings, are as follows:
      4.1. The Respondent No.1 who was the 1st petitioner before the High
           Court is the wife of one K. Raghunath (hereinafter referred to
           as deceased) and Respondent No.2 is the son of Respondent
           no.1. The deceased during his lifetime allegedly owned many
           immovable properties in different places in the District of
           Bangalore and in several other places. It is averred that the
           deceased was closely related to one D.K. Adikeshavalu,1 a
           member of Parliament who was active in politics in his lifetime.
           DKA died on 24.04.2013 and then began the scouting of the
           properties held by DKA. The children of DKA, in particular
           Respondent No.12 who is also the appellant No.1 in appeal
           arising out of SLP (Crl) No.10515 of 2022 and his other close
           associates started pressuring the deceased for transfer of some
           of the immovable properties owned by him. Respondent No.
           12 alleged that the source of income of those properties which
           is in the deceased’s name is of their father. However, it is the
           case of the Respondents that the deceased resisted pressure of
           Respondent No. 12 and asserted that he is the absolute owner of
           the properties acquired from his own source of income generated
           from real estate. As a result, the tiff between the deceased and
           the children of the deceased DKA became irreconcilable.
      4.2. In the year 2016, it transpired that an income tax raid took
           place in the premises of late DKA which was attributed to the


1    ‘DKA’
1526                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


         deceased. It is contended by the respondents that the deceased
         had executed a registered Will on 28.01.2016 bequeathing all
         the properties owned by him in favour of 1st respondent. It is
         the case of the appellant that the deceased did not disclose
         the fact of execution of the Will to any of the appellants herein
         during his lifetime. Somehow, when the deceased wanted to
         sell one of the properties and was about to execute a sale deed
         on 4.05.2019, the Respondent no. 12 herein got to know of the
         same and he with his sister i.e. 14th respondent, summoned
         the deceased to the place of the 14th respondent. On being
         summoned the deceased left the house on the afternoon of
         02.05.2019 informing the respondents herein that he was
         going to meet 12th and 14th respondents. The deceased was
         missing for two days and thereafter, on 04.05.2019, at 7.00
         a.m., it was contended by the respondent that they received
         a call from the deceased that his life was in danger. Since K.
         Raghunath had expressed threat to his life, the Respondent
         No.1 sent his son/respondent No.2 to the house of the first
         appellant in appeal arising out SLP No. 10515/2022) to verify
         about his father. The 2nd respondent went to the guest house
         situated in Whitefield, Bengaluru and saw his father hanging
         to a ceiling fan at about 8.30 a.m. The statement of the 2nd
         respondent/son was recorded on the same day, who at that
         point of time did not suspect anyone and thought that it was an
         act of suicide by his father and gave a statement accordingly
         to the Police that he was not suspecting anyone. Based upon
         the said statement of the son, an unnatural death report was
         generated in U.D.R.No.28 of 2019 by the H.A.L.Police and the
         case was closed.
    4.3. On 15.02.2020, a complaint came to be registered by the
         Respondent No.1 alleging that her husband i.e. the deceased
         had been murdered by respondents 12 to 14 and others.
         However, the police refused to register the said complaint. When
         the crime was not registered, the Respondent No.1 preferred
         a private complaint bearing P.C.R.No.51691 of 2020 invoking
         Section 200 of the Cr.P.C alleging commission of murder of
         her husband K. Raghunath by respondents 10 to 14. After
         conducting an inquiry in the matter, the learned Magistrate
         ordered an enquiry on 02.03.2020. In terms of the order an
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1527

              Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


           FIR came to be registered against respondents 10 to 13 and
           appellants, in Crime No.89 of 2020 for offences punishable under
           Sections 34, 120B, 467, 468, 421, 474, 302, 464 and 471 of
           the IPC. It was followed by two other crimes which also came
           to be registered in Crime No.148 of 2020 u/s. 34, 120B, 468,
           465, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against appellants
           and Respondent No. 12 and 13 and Crime No. 7 of 2021 which
           was lodged u/s. 420, 255, 257, 259, 256, 258 and 260 of Indian
           Penal Code, 1860 against unknown persons. The crime was
           registered on 05.03.2020 i.e. after almost ten months of the
           incident. Several civil proceedings against the respondents
           were generated after registration of the crime alleging murder
           of the deceased.
     4.4. In the interregnum, the respondents knocked the doors of High
          Court in Writ Petition No. 4333 of 2021 when the investigation
          was not completed despite an order of registration of crime.
          The said petition was disposed of directing the constitution of
          a SIT to enquire into the complaint within two weeks. In terms
          of the direction, an order was issued by the Department to
          constitute a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT).
          The SIT conducted investigation and filed a ‘B’ report before
          the concerned Court in Crime No.89 of 2020 and other crimes
          148 of 2020 and 7 of 2021. The learned Magistrate by his
          order dated 21.02.2022 rejected the ‘B’ report and directed
          Station House Officer of HAL Police Station before whom
          the complaint had been initially registered to conduct further
          investigation and submit a report on or before 22.04.2022. The
          learned Magistrate observed that SIT did not investigate the
          case with all fairness and that the investigation was lopsided.
          The learned Magistrate observed that the report of SIT has
          not taken into account material aspects leading to the death of
          the deceased like the cause of death, the events subsequent
          to the death of the deceased etc. which were material facts
          which needed to be investigated. As a result, the Magistrate
          declared the investigation conducted by SIT as unsatisfactory,
          shoddy and callous. The Respondents called in question the
          said order passed by learned Magistrate and sought that the
          investigation of the case be entrusted to CBI in the light of SIT
          having already filed a ‘B’ report in the matter.
1528                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     4.5. The High Court vide the impugned order allowed the writ petition
          of respondents in part and ordered a writ of mandamus to
          CBI to conduct further investigation. The High Court observed
          that the direction passed by the learned Magistrate whereby it
          directed further investigation to be conducted by the HAL Police
          Station was rendered without jurisdiction and required it to be
          obliterated, as power of superior Court cannot be exercised by
          the learned Magistrate.
     4.6. Subsequently, CBI registered FIR against appellants and
          Respondent No. 12 to 14 in RC.5/S/2022/CBI/SCB on
          30.09.2022 in pursuance of the direction passed by the High
          Court vide impugned Order. The Crime no 06(S)/2022 and
          RC 7(S)/2022 were also registered by CBI, Special Branch
          Chennai. The appellants have preferred appeals against the
          impugned order. In the meanwhile, CBI conducted a raid on
          11.11.2022 at the residential office and residential premises of
          Respondent No. 12-14.

     CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
5.   At the outset, learned senior counsel Mr. Aman Lekhi for the appellants
     would contend that the direction to conduct ‘further investigation’ by
     CBI in Crime Nos. 89 & 148 of 2020 and Crime No. 7 of 2021 is
     illegal and unsustainable.
     He further argued that the appellants did not suppress the orders
     dated 09.12.2020 & 04.07.2022 in CRL Petition Nos. 2642 of 2020
     & 5856 of 2022 respectively as alleged by respondents herein
     which pertained to quashing petitions filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C vis-à-vis
     quashing criminal proceedings arising from only one FIR i.e. Crime
     No. 89/2020 in P.C.R. 51691/20 which is not the subject matter in
     the present appeals.
     Learned senior counsel questioned whether the Ld. Magistrate
     had jurisdiction to even take cognizance u/s 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C when
     proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C has been closed, and more so even
     direct for investigation into an offence exclusively triable by the court
     of sessions through a private complaint belatedly filed by exercising
     the limited power u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. which dealt with only ascertaining
     whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        1529

              Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


     Learned senior counsel submitted that respondents herein had filed
     private complaint against the appellants herein belatedly after a lapse
     of over ten months and post obtaining knowledge with regards to the
     fact that the appellants had been witnesses to the last will of deceased
     dated 20.04.2018 which bestowed limited benefits on respondents
     No.1 & 2. The appellants’ counsel also argued that Respondent No.2
     who was the informant in UDR case gave an identical statement that
     his father was in financial distress and committed suicide. It was
     argued that pursuant to Order dated 28.04.2021 passed by High
     Court of Karnataka in W.P. 4333/2021, SIT headed by a Deputy
     Commissioner of Police was appointed who submitted a 639-pages
     B-report with the finding that there were no material evidences to link
     the appellants herein vis-à-vis the allegations levelled by Respondent
     No.1 in the private complaint. Further it was argued that appellants
     are father and brother of the deceased who are impecunious farmers.
     Appellant No. 1 is 89 years old who is at the fag end of his life and
     the younger brother who is appellant No.2 had all his life lived in
     Chittoor. Learned counsel contended that Respondent No.1, 2 and
     the other grandson wants to usurp all the properties of the deceased
     son which rightly belonged to D.A Srinivas.
     The learned senior counsel for the appellants further argued that
     no direction for investigation could have been made by the learned
     Magistrate under section 202 of the Code as offence complained
     was triable exclusively by the Court of Session and Magistrate was
     obligated to make an enquiry and call upon the complainant to
     produce all her witnesses and examine them on oath as contained
     under section 202(2) of the Code. Even after that, FIR could not be
     registered since FIR could have been registered only under Chapter
     XII of the Code. The Counsel pointed out that the procedure adopted
     is unknown to the law since there was no occasion for transfer of
     investigation to CBI since the registration of FIR was in itself illegal.
     In fact, no hearing was afforded to the appellants.
6.   Per contra, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned
     senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the
     deceased was a confidant of former Member of Parliament, DKA and
     being a successful realtor had lawfully acquired several movable and
     immovable properties during his lifetime which was to be succeeded
     by wife and children. Since the deceased was apprehending danger to
     his life, he had executed a Will dated 28.01.2016 expressing his wish
1530                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


     to bequeath all the properties in favour of his wife/respondent no.1.
     However, suddenly a fabricated Will dated 20.04.2018, posthumously
     registered on 31.12.2019 came into existence bequeathing the
     properties of the deceased in favour of respondent no. 12 which
     was prepared in connivance with respondent no. 13 in furtherance
     of the conspiracy to extort the properties. In the report of the Truth
     Lab (Annexure R-3 in this appeal), it was found that the Will dated
     20.04.2018 was fabricated. The Office of Gandhinagar Sub-Registrar
     has also filed a complaint before the Halasuru Police station on
     conducting an independent preliminary inquiry on the complaint
     lodged by respondent no. 2. Later on, an FIR dated 04.01.2021
     bearing Crime No. 7 of 2021 came to be registered for counterfeiting
     stamps and documents (Annexure P-17 in this appeal). Basing this
     it is argued that the constitution of SIT turned into a nightmare and
     sitting like a snake in the grass. Therefore, the High Court has rightly
     directed for an investigation by the CBI.
     Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel would vehemently argue
     that when the learned Magistrate directed for registration of FIR,
     the appellants preferred Criminal Petition No. 2642 of 2020 before
     the High Court seeking quashing of the order directing registration
     of FIR in Crime No. 89 of 2020 and the entire criminal proceedings
     as well including the investigation of HAL Police Station, Bangalore.
     However, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
     dated 09.12.2020 (Annexure R-4 in this appeal). Therefore, the
     argument challenging registration of FIR is no longer available to
     the appellants.
     Referring to the discrepancies in the SIT report which is highlighted
     in the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as in the
     impugned order, Mr. Rohatgi would submit that the High Court has
     rightly interfered in the matter to direct fair and impartial investigation
     by the CBI.

     ANALYSIS
7.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length who have
     taken us through the entire material on record. However, considering
     the nature of the order, we propose to pass, we are not referring to
     the details, lest it may affect either of the parties at any subsequent
     proceeding including CBI investigation.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            1531

              Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


8.   The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
     for the appellants revolved around the Magistrate’s power to direct for
     registration of FIR for an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions
     Court. However, despite seriously considering the said argument,
     we are not impressed to dwell on the issue for the reason that when
     the learned Magistrate directed for registration of FIR vide its order
     dated 02.03.2020, the appellants challenged the same by preferring
     Criminal Petition No. 2642 of 2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which
     came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.12.2020 in
     the following words:
           “This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
           praying to quash the entire Criminal Proceedings pending
           on the file of the Hon’ble XXIX ACMM, Mayo Hall Bengaluru
           PCR No. 51691/2020 and its consequent registration of
           FIR in Cr. No. 89/2020 and pursuant investigation by 1st
           respondent H.A.L. Police Station, Bengaluru.
           This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
           through video conference the Court made the following:
                                     ORDER
           Sri. Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel appearing for Sri.
           Mahesh S., learned counsel for the petitioners filed a
           memo dated 09.12.2020 seeking permission to withdraw
           the petition reserving liberty to approach this Hon’ble Court,
           if necessary, in future.
           2. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.
           Kaleem Sabir, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is
           also present virtually. He submits that he has no objection
           to withdraw the petition.
           3 The said memo is placed on record and the petition is
           dismissed as withdrawn.
           In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No. 1/2020
           does not survive for consideration and the same is also
           liable to be disposed.
                                                                  Sd/-
                                                               JUDGE”
1532                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


9.    The appellants having withdrawn the challenge to the registration
      of the FIR, we are not in a position to take the cause further as
      it has become final and binding on the parties. Thus, the issue
      regarding registration of FIR is not open to be called in question in
      any subsequent proceedings.
10. We shall now consider as to whether in the facts and circumstances
    of the case, the High Court was justified in directing for investigation
    by the CBI.
11. It has been settled in catena of decisions that the High Court or
    the Supreme Court being Constitutional Court is vested with extra-
    ordinary power to direct CBI investigation depending upon the
    facts and circumstances of the case. The Constitutional Courts are
    expectantly and reverently entrusted with the duty to serve justice
    being a sovereign and premiere constitutional institution. In “Vinay
    Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali”2, this Court has held that the power to direct
    for CBI investigation is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional
    circumstances, but, when the facts so demand, it is extremely
    necessary to exercise the said power to provide credibility and instil
    confidence in order to do complete justice and for enforcing the
    fundamental rights. The following principle has been laid down by
    this Court in paragraphs 33, 43, 44 & 45:
             “33. This judgment, thus, clearly shows that the Court of
             Magistrate has a clear power to direct further investigation
             when a report is filed under Section 173(2) and may also
             exercise such powers with the aid of Section 156(3) of the
             Code. The lurking doubt, if any, that remained in giving
             wider interpretation to Section 173(8) was removed and
             controversy put to an end by the judgment of this Court in
             Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI [(2001) 7 SCC 536 : 2001 SCC
             (Cri) 1280] where the Court held that although the said
             section does not, in specific terms, mention the power of the
             court to order further investigation, the power of the police
             to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be
             triggered into motion at the instance of the court. When any
             such order is passed by the court, which has the jurisdiction
             to do so, then such order should not even be interfered


2    (2013) 5 SCC 762
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                              1533

               Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


           with in exercise of a higher court's revisional jurisdiction.
           Such orders would normally be of an advantage to achieve
           the ends of justice. It was clarified, without ambiguity, that
           the Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section 173(8)
           of the Code can direct CBI to further investigate the case
           and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections
           raised by the appellant to the investigation and the new
           report to be submitted by the investigating officer, would be
           governed by sub-section (2) to sub-section (6) of Section
           173 of the Code. There is no occasion for the Court to
           interpret Section 173(8) of the Code restrictively. After filing
           of the final report, the learned Magistrate can also take
           cognizance on the basis of the material placed on record
           by the investigating agency and it is permissible for him
           to direct further investigation. Conduct of proper and fair
           investigation is the hallmark of any criminal investigation.
           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.
           44. We have deliberated at some length on the issue
           that the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of
           the Code do not control or limit, directly or impliedly, the
           width of the power of the Magistrate under Section 228 of
           the Code. Wherever a charge-sheet has been submitted
           to the court, even this Court ordinarily would not reopen
           the investigation, especially by entrusting the same to a
           specialised agency. It can safely be stated and concluded
           that in an appropriate case, when the Court feels that the
           investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper
1534                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            direction and that in order to do complete justice and where
            the facts of the case demand, it is always open to the Court
            to hand over the investigation to a specialised agency.
            These principles have been reiterated with approval in
            the judgments of this Court in Disha v. State of Gujarat
            [(2011) 13 SCC 337 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 628], Vineet
            Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC
            (Cri) 307], Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi [(1996) 6
            SCC 500] and Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
            [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006].
            45. The power to order/direct “reinvestigation” or “de novo”
            investigation falls in the domain of higher courts, that too
            in exceptional cases. If one examines the provisions of
            the Code, there is no specific provision for cancellation
            of the reports, except that the investigating agency can
            file a closure report (where according to the investigating
            agency, no offence is made out). Even such a report is
            subject to acceptance by the learned Magistrate who, in
            his wisdom, may or may not accept such a report. For
            valid reasons, the court may, by declining to accept such
            a report, direct “further investigation”, or even on the basis
            of the record of the case and the documents annexed
            thereto, summon the accused.”
12. Yet again in “Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors.3, this Court has
    held thus in paras 75, 79 & 80 :
            ”75. That the extraordinary power of the constitutional
            courts under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of
            India qua the issuance of direction to CBI to conduct
            investigation must be exercised with great caution, was
            underlined in Committee for Protection of Democratic
            Rights [State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of
            Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC
            (Cri) 401] as adverted to hereinabove. Observing that
            although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this
            regard, it was highlighted that such an order cannot be
            passed as a matter of routine or merely because the party


3   (2016) 3 SCC 135
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             1535

               Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


           has levelled some allegations against the local police and
           can be invoked 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 for enforcing the
           fundamental rights.
           79. The precedential ordainment against absolute prohibition
           for assignment of investigation to any impartial agency
           like CBI, submission of the charge-sheet by the normal
           investigating agency in law notwithstanding, albeit in an
           exceptional fact situation warranting such initiative, in order
           to secure a fair, honest and complete investigation and to
           consolidate the confidence of the victim(s) and the public
           in general in the justice administering mechanism, is thus
           unquestionably absolute and hallowed by time. Such a
           measure, however, can by no means be a matter of course
           or routine but has to be essentially adopted in order to live
           up to and effectuate the salutary objective of guaranteeing an
           independent and upright mechanism of justice dispensation
           without fear or favour, by treating all alike.
           80. In the decisions cited on behalf of CBI as well, this
           Court in K. Saravanan Karuppasamy [K. Saravanan
           Karuppasamy v. State of T.N., (2014) 10 SCC 406 : (2015)
           1 SCC (Cri) 133] and Sudipta Lenka [Sudipta Lenka v.
           State of Odisha, (2014) 11 SCC 527 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri)
           428], recounted the above propositions underpinning the
           primacy of credibility and confidence in investigations and a
           need for complete justice and enforcement of fundamental
           rights judged on the touchstone of high public interest and
           the paramountcy of the rule of law.”
13. It was argued by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the
    respondents that the appellants are not entitled to maintain these
    appeals as the present is the case where only an investigation
    has been directed. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the
    appellants would submit that the appellants’ legal right to defend
    themselves at the preliminary stage also is well recognized and if
    they apprehend of them being unnecessarily involved in a criminal
1536                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     prosecution, they are entitled to maintain this appeal to challenge
     the CBI investigation into the matter.
14. It is settled in the matter of Union of India & Anr. vs. W.N. Chadha4,
    that a prospective accused has no right to be heard at the stage
    of registration of FIR. Although the appellants have not succeeded
    in their challenge to the lodging of the FIR, having abandoned the
    challenge by withdrawing Crl. M.P No. 2642 of 2020 in the High
    Court, yet, we are referring to the principles so as to deal with the
    argument raised by Mr. Lekhi. The following is held in para 92:
            “92. More so, the accused has no right to have any say
            as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save
            under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the
            Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right
            during the course of the investigation of a case instituted
            on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing
            of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in
            a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report
            till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code,
            as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance
            of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding
            that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable
            exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has
            no right to have participation till the process is issued. In
            case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated
            under Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend
            the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are
            various judicial pronouncements to this effect, but we feel
            that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions.
            At the same time, we would like to point out that there
            are certain provisions under the Code empowering the
            Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under
            certain specified circumstances.”
15. The principle laid down in W.N. Chadha (supra) has been reiterated
    in Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.5,
    wherein the following has been held in para 10:


4   (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 260
5   (2020) 4 SCC 22
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            1537

              Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


           “10. …….It is required to be noted that, as such, even
           the proposed accused Shri Bhaumik shall not have any
           say at this stage in an application under Section 173(8)
           CrPC for further investigation, as observed by this Court in
           W.N. Chadha [Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp
           (4) SCC 260 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 1171] ; Narender G. Goel
           [Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC
           65 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 933] and Dinubhai Baghabhai
           Solanki [Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat,
           (2014) 4 SCC 626 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 384]. In Dinubhai
           Baghabhai Solanki [Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki v. State of
           Gujarat, (2014) 4 SCC 626 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 384] after
           considering another decision of this Court in Sri Bhagwan
           Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha
           Maharaj v. State of A.P. [Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada
           Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P.,
           (1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047], it is observed
           and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8) CrPC
           to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused
           before any direction for further investigation is made. In Sri
           Bhagwan Samardha [Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada
           Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P.,
           (1999) 5 SCC 740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047], this Court in
           para 11 held as under : (Sri Bhagwan Samardha case
           [Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata
           Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P., (1999) 5 SCC
           740 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1047], SCC p. 743)
           “11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the
           police to conduct further investigation cannot have any
           inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest
           that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any
           such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on
           the court would only result in encumbering the court with
           the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be
           afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law
           does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate
           with such an obligation.”
16. Thus, the law settled on the above score answers the argument raised
    by Mr. Lekhi. Therefore, we are of the considered view that once an
1538                                                             [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


     FIR is registered and investigation has taken place, direction for an
     investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective
     suspect or accused. The matter for entrusting investigation to a
     particular agency is basically at the discretion of the Court.
17. At this stage, it is profitable to refer to the observation made by this
    Court in the matter of Mandakini Diwan & Anr. vs. High Court of
    Chhattisgarh & Ors.,6 wherein this Court directed for investigation
    by the CBI in a matter, like the present one, where at an earlier stage
    the police had filed a closure report treating it to be a case of suicide.
    The following has been held by this Court in paras 8, 20 & 21:
            “8. According to the appellants, the police filed the closure
            report treating it to be a case of suicide. The appellants
            repeatedly continued to represent to the authorities for a
            fair investigation after registering first information report. All
            the complaints made by the appellants to the authorities
            did not result in the registering of FIR against Respondent
            7. All the complaints though were inquired into but were
            ultimately closed as a result of the influence exerted by
            Respondent 7. Till date, neither FIR has been registered
            on the several complaints made by the appellants nor a
            fair investigation has been carried out in order to find out
            the truth.
            ***
            20. In Awungshi Chirmayo v. State (NCT of Delhi), this
            Court directed CBI to hold enquiry in the criminal matter
            related to murder of two cousins due to certain puzzling
            facts including inconclusive post-mortem report. It held as
            follows: (SCC pp. 572-73, paras 14-18)
                   “14. In a seminal judgment reported as State of
                   W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
                   Rights, this Court has discussed in detail
                   inter alia the circumstances under which the
                   constitutional courts would be empowered to
                   issue directions for CBI enquiry to be made.
                   This Court noted that the power to transfer


6   2024 SCC online SC 2448
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                   1539

              Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


                investigation should be used sparingly, however,
                it could be used for doing complete justice and
                ensuring there is no violation of fundamental
                rights. This is what the Court said in para 70:
                (SCC p. 602)
                     ‘70. … Insofar as the question of
                     issuing a direction to CBI to conduct
                     investigation in a case is concerned,
                     although no inflexible guidelines can
                     be laid down to decide whether or
                     not such power should be exercised
                     but time and again it has been
                     reiterated that such an order is not to
                     be passed as a matter of routine or
                     merely because a party has levelled
                     some allegations against the local
                     police. This extraordinary power must
                     be exercised sparingly, cautiously
                     and in exceptional situations where
                     it becomes necessary to provide
                     credibility and instil confidence in
                     investigations 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 fundamental
                     rights.’
                15. The powers of this Court for directing
                further investigation regardless of the stage
                of investigation are extremely wide. This can
                be done even if the charge-sheet has been
                submitted by the prosecuting agency. In Bharati
                Tamang v. Union of India, this Court allowed the
                writ petition filed by the widow of late Madan
                Tamang who was killed during a political clash
                and directed investigation by CBI which would
                be monitored by the Joint Director, CBI. The
                following observations were made in para 44:
                (SCC p. 601)
1540                                                   [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                 Supreme Court Reports


             ‘44. … 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
             the 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.’
        16. This Court has expressed its strong views
        about the need of Courts to be alive to genuine
        grievances brought before it by ordinary citizens
        as has been held in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v.
        State of Gujarat.
        17. It is to observe that unresolved crimes
        tend to erode public trust in institutions which
        have been established for maintaining law and
        order. Criminal investigation must be both fair
        and effective. We say nothing on the fairness
        of the investigation appears to us, but the fact
        that it has been ineffective is self-evident. The
        kith and kin of the deceased who live far away
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                              1541

               Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors.


                in Manipur have a real logistical problem while
                approaching authorities in Delhi, yet they have
                their hope alive, and have shown trust and
                confidence in this system. We are therefore of
                the considered view that this case needs to be
                handed over to CBI, for a proper investigation
                and also to remove any doubts in the minds
                of the appellants, and to bring the real culprits
                to justice.
                18. In view of the discussion made above,
                the order of the Delhi High Court dated 18-
                5-2018, dismissing the prayer of the present
                appellants to transfer the investigation to CBI is
                hereby set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed
                and we direct that CBI to hold enquiry in the
                matter. The case shall be transferred from SIT
                to CBI. The SIT, which has so far conducted
                the investigation in the matter, will hand over
                all the relevant papers and documents to CBI
                for investigation. After a thorough investigation,
                CBI will submit its complete investigation report
                or charge-sheet before the court concerned as
                expeditiously as possible.”
           21. It is true that power to direct CBI to conduct investigation
           is to be exercised sparingly and such orders should not
           be passed in a routine manner. In the present case,
           the aggrieved party has raised allegations of bias and
           undue influence on the police machinery of the State of
           Chhattisgarh. Coupled with the fact that the thorough, fair
           and independent investigation needs to be carried out to
           find out the truth about the whole incident and in particular
           about the ante-mortem injuries. We are of the view that
           such a direction needs to be issued in the present case.”
18. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the deceased was
    closely associated with DKA, a member of Parliament and Chairman
    of Temple Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple (Tirumala Tirupathi
    Devasthanam). The deceased, a close confidant of DKA, was a
    successful realtor and had huge assets in and around Bangalore. His
    mysterious death was preceded by execution of two different Wills,
1542                                                       [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     one in favour of his wife/respondent no. 1 and the other in favour of
     respondent No. 12 which was registered after his controversial death.
     There are civil proceedings relating to mutation and declaration of
     title as well as the allegations concerning forgery of stamp papers.
     The learned Magistrate while directing further investigation and the
     High Court, under the impugned order, has highlighted the glaring
     defects in the investigation which we have avoided to reiterate so
     that it does not influence the CBI investigation. However, the fact
     remains that the truth surrendering the death of K. Raghunath needs
     to be settled after a complete and fair investigation by the CBI which,
     in the facts and circumstances of the present case, has rightly been
     directed by the High Court.
19. We, accordingly, affirm the order of the High Court and dismiss the
    appeals. The CBI shall conduct the investigation within a period
    of 08 months and the State of Karnataka shall render all possible
    assistance to the CBI to make a fair investigation into the crime.
    The entire papers shall be handed over by the concerned police to
    the CBI within 15 days. If the CBI proceeds to file chargesheet, the
    same shall be submitted before the jurisdictional CBI Court in the
    State of Karnataka.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey