Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kishor Samrite vs Union Of India on 29 April, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 20196 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
KISHOR SAMRITE S/O SHRI NANAJI SAMRITE,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EX MLA
R/O LANJI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUYASH PYASI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CABINET
SECRETARY RASHTRAPATI BHAWAN NEW
DELHI (DELHI)
2. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ROOM NO.
48C, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
3. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAVAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAVAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. COLLECTOR BALAGHAT NEW
COLLECTORATE RD, CIVIL LINES,
DEENDAYAL PURAM, BALAGHAT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BALAGHAT GOURAV PATH, MISSION
COMPOUND, BUDHI, BALAGHAT (MADHYA
PRADESH)
7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE EOW
BALAGHAT DISTRICT BALAGHAT
DIVISION, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i). That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the C.B.I. (Central Bureau of Investigation) or any higher authority to initiate a comprehensive inquiry into the entire scam.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the State authorities to hand over the entire case bearing crime number 177/2022 to the C.B.I. or any higher authority.
(iii) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction deemed necessary in the interest of justice.
2. At the outset, Shri Sankalp Kochar who is appearing in W.P.No.26479/2022 and M.Cr.C.No. 2597/2023, submitted that he is appearing for the accused persons. The bail which was granted to the accused persons was subsequently cancelled by the High Court. The 3 Police after completing the investigation has filed the charge sheet and trial is going on.
3. However, by relying upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India and others, decided on 9.5.2014 passed in W.P.(Civil) No.401 of 2013, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that where investigation agency is not investigating the matter properly and where crores of rupees are involved and the offence is committed in multiple States, then the matter should have been transferred to CBI.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner is not complainant and he claims himself to be a public spirited person.
6. Be that whatever it may be.
7. Investigation is already complete and charge sheet has already been filed. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Chattoraj (supra) has held as under : -
30. The factual narrative given in the foregoing paragraphs clearly establish the following:
1. That financial scam nicknamed chit-fund scam that has hit the States of West Bengal, Tripura, Assam and Odisha involves collection of nearly 10,000 crores (approx.)from the general public especially the weaker sections of the society which have fallen prey to the temptations of handsome returns on such deposits extended by the companies involved in the scam.
2. That investigation so far conducted suggests that the collection of money from 4 the depositors was neither legally permissible nor were such collections/deposits invested in any meaningful business activity that could generate the high returns/promised to the depositors.
3. That more than 25 lac claims have so far been received by the Commissions of Enquiries set up in the States of Odisha and West Bengal which is indicative of the magnitude of scam in terms of number of citizens that have been defrauded by the ponzi companies.
4. That the companies indulge in ponzi schemes have their tentacles in different States giving the scam inter-state ramifications. That such huge collections could have international money laundering dimensions cannot be ruled out and needs to be effectively investigated.
5. That Investigation so far conducted reveals involvement of several political and other influential personalities wielding considerable clout and influence.
6. That the role of regulators like SEBI, authorities under the Companies Act and the Reserve Bank of India is also under investigation by the State Police Agency which may have to be taken to its logical conclusion by an effective and independent investigation.
31. The question is whether the above features call for transfer of the ongoing investigation from the State Police to the CBI. Our answer is in the affirmative.
Each one of the aspects set out above in our view calls for investigation by an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). That is because apart from the sensitivity of the issues involved especially inter-state ramifications of the 5 scam under investigation, transfer of cases from the State police have been ordered by this Court also with a view to ensure credibility of such investigation in the public perception. Transfers have been ordered by this Court even in cases where the family members of victim killed in a firing incident had expressed apprehensions about the fairness of the investigation and prayed for entrusting the matter to a credible and effective agency like the CBI. Investigation by the State Police in a scam that involves thousands of crores collected from the public allegedly because of the patronage of people occupying high positions in the system will hardly carry conviction especially when even the regulators who were expected to prevent or check such a scam appear to have turned a blind eye to what was going on. The State Police Agency has done well in making seizures, in registering cases, in completing investigation in most of the cases and filing charge-sheets and bringing those who are responsible to book. The question, however, is not whether the State police has faltered. The question is whether what is done by the State police is sufficient to inspire confidence of those who are aggrieved. While we do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the State police have done all that it ought to have done, we need to point out that money trail has not yet been traced. The collections made from the public far exceed the visible investment that the investigating agencies have till now identified. So also the larger conspiracy angle in the States of Assam, Odisha and West Bengal although under investigation has not made much headway partly because of the inter- state ramifications, which the Investigating Agencies need to examine but are handicapped in examining."
8. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner was directed to argue as to whether the police had failed to investigate the matter properly and 6 what is the basis for making such an allegation. Except by saying that number of persons were cheated even after getting the bail, counsel for the petitioner could not point out any reasons to transfer the case to CBI.
9. It is well established principle of law that even after charge sheet is filed the matter can be transferred to CBI but the same has to be done in exceptional cases.
10. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. CBI and others, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 182 has held as under :-
"22. Section 482 CrPC, however, states that nothing in CrPC shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as is necessary to give effect to any order under CrPC or to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Thus, the provisions of CrPC do not limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order of the court or to prevent the abuse of any process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The language of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC, therefore, cannot limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for fresh investigation or reinvestigation if the High Court is satisfied that such fresh investigation or reinvestigation is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
23. We find support for this conclusion in the following observations of this Court in 7 Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 6 SCC 332 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1047] cited by Mr Dhavan: (SCC p. 337, paras 13 & 15) "13. It is, however, beyond any cavil that 'further investigation' and 'reinvestigation' stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior court in exercise of its constitutional power, namely, under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a 'State' to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction. Pasayat, J. in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar [(2008) 5 SCC 413 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 631] opined as under:
(SCC p. 415, para 7) '7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation.' A distinction, therefore, exists between a reinvestigation and further investigation.
15. The investigating agency and/or a court exercise their jurisdiction conferred on them only in terms of the provisions of the Code.
The courts subordinate to the High Court even do not have any inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or 8 otherwise. The precognizance jurisdiction to remand vested in the subordinate courts, therefore, must be exercised within the four corners of the Code."
24. It is clear from the aforesaid observations of this Court that the investigating agency or the court subordinate to the High Court exercising powers under CrPC have to exercise the powers within the four corners of CrPC and this would mean that the investigating agency may undertake further investigation and the subordinate court may direct further investigation into the case where charge-sheet has been filed under sub-section (2) of Section 173 CrPC and such further investigation will not mean fresh investigation or reinvestigation. But these limitations in sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC in a case where charge-sheet has been filed will not apply to the exercise of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for securing the ends of justice.
25. This position of law will also be clear from the decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2009) 1 SCC 441 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 523] cited by Mr Raval. The facts of that case are that the State Police had investigated into the allegations of irregularities in the selection of a large number of candidates for the post of Panchayat Secretaries and had filed a charge- sheet against Nirmal Singh Kahlon. Yet the High Court in a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution passed orders on 7-5-2003 directing investigation by CBI into the case as it thought that such investigation by CBI was "not only just and proper but a necessity".
9Nirmal Singh Kahlon challenged the decision of the High Court before this Court contending inter alia that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC did not envisage an investigation by CBI after the filing of a charge-sheet and the Court of Magistrate alone has the jurisdiction to issue any further direction for investigation before this Court.
26. Amongst the authorities cited on behalf of Nirmal Singh Kahlon was the decision of this Court in Vineet Narain case [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed the task of the monitoring court comes to an end. Yet this Court sustained the order of the High Court with inter alia the following reasons: (Nirmal Singh Kahlon case [(2009) 1 SCC 441 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 523] , SCC pp. 465-66, para 63) "63. The High Court in this case was not monitoring any investigation. It only desired that the investigation should be carried out by an independent agency. Its anxiety, as is evident from the order dated 3-4-2002, was to see that the officers of the State do not get away. If that be so, the submission of Mr Rao that the monitoring of an investigation comes to an end after the charge-sheet is filed, as has been held by this Court in Vineet Narain [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] and M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India [(2007) 1 SCC 110 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 264] , loses all significance."
27. Though the decision of this Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2009) 1 SCC 441 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 523] 10 is in the context of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the above observations will equally apply to a case where the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is exercised to direct investigation of a case by an independent agency to secure the ends of justice."
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 160 has held as under :-
"2. Cry for fair trial by the accused as well as by the victim sometimes remains in the singular and individualistic realm, may be due to the perception gatherable from the facts that there is an attempt to contest on the plinth of fairness being provoked by some kind of vengeance or singularity of "affected purpose"; but, irrefutably a pronounced and pregnant one, there are occasions when the individual cry is not guided by any kind of revengeful attitude or anger or venom, but by the distressing disappointment faced by the grieved person in getting his voice heard in proper perspective by the authorities who are in charge of conducting investigation and the frustration of a victim gets more aggravated when he is impecunious, and mentally shattered owing to the situation he is in and thereby knows not where to go, the anguish takes the character of collective agony. When the investigation, as perceived by him, is nothing but an apology for the same and mirrors before him the world of disillusionment that gives rise to the scuffle between the majesty and sanctity of law on one hand and its abuses on the other, he is constrained to seek intervention of the superior courts putting forth a case that his cry 11 is not motivated but an expression of collective mortification and the intention is that justice should not be attenuated. "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. We may further elucidate. The power to order fresh, de novo or reinvestigation being vested with the constitutional courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has only one taste, the taste of salt, so does justice have one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people without any discrimination. We may hasten to add that the democratic set-up has the potentiality of ruination if a citizen feels, the truth uttered by a poor man is seldom listened to. Not for nothing it has been said that sun rises and sun sets, light and darkness, winter and spring 12 come and go, even the course of time is playful but truth remains and sparkles when justice is done. It is the bounden duty of a court of law to uphold the truth and truth means absence of deceit, absence of fraud and in a criminal investigation a real and fair investigation, not an investigation that reveals itself as a sham one. It is not acceptable. It has to be kept uppermost in mind that impartial and truthful investigation is imperative. If there is indentation or concavity in the investigation, can the "faith" in investigation be regarded as the gospel truth? Will it have the sanctity or the purity of a genuine investigation? 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. Of course, the suspicion must have some sort of base and foundation and not a figment of one's wild imagination. One may think an impartial investigation would be a nostrum but not doing so would be like playing possum. As has been stated earlier, facts are self-evident and the grieved protagonist, a person belonging to the lower strata. He should not harbour the feeling that he is an "orphan under law".
12. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 578 has held as under :-
13"41. From the various decisions relied upon by the petitioner counsel as well as by respondents' counsel, the following principles can be culled out.
41.1. The test of admissibility of evidence lies in its relevancy.
41.2. Unless there is an express or implied constitutional prohibition or other law, evidence placed as a result of even an illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.
41.3. If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil which try to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiency, Courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law.
41.4. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the Court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice.
41.5. In order to ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on without any deficiency, in appropriate cases this Court can even constitute Special Investigation Team and also give appropriate directions to the Central and State Governments and other authorities to give all required assistance to such specially constituted investigating team in order to book the real culprits and for effective conduct of the prosecution.
41.6. While entrusting the criminal prosecution with other instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special Investigation 14 Team, the High Court or this Court can also monitor such investigation in order to ensure proper conduct of the prosecution.
41.7. In appropriate cases even if the charge- sheet is filed it is open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any other independent agency in order to do complete justice.
41.8. In exceptional circumstances the Court in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice and if considers necessary may direct for investigation de novo."
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others , reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 has held as under :-
"37. This Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala [(1998) 5 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1291] , Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar [(2008) 5 SCC 413 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 631] , Nirmal Singh Kahlon [(2009) 1 SCC 441 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 523] , Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 6 SCC 332 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1047] and Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna [(2009) 7 SCC 685 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 611] , SCC p. 693, para 15 has emphasised that where the court comes to the conclusion that there was a serious irregularity in the investigation that had taken place, the court may direct a further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, even transferring the investigation to an independent agency, rather than directing a reinvestigation. "Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue 15 such a direction." (Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel case [(2009) 6 SCC 332 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1047] , SCC p. 337, para 13) (emphasis supplied)
38. Unless an extraordinary case of gross abuse of power is made out by those in charge of the investigation, the court should be quite loathe to interfere with the investigation, a field of activity reserved for the police and the executive. Thus, in case of a mala fide exercise of power by a police officer the court may interfere. (Vide S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari [(1970) 1 SCC 653 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 258 : AIR 1970 SC 786] .)
39. In Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn. [1988 Supp SCC 482 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 864] this Court held that where the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner it may be necessary for the court to order for fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency for the ends of justice so that real truth may be revealed. In the said case, this Court transferred the investigation to CBI, after coming to the conclusion that investigation conducted earlier was not fair."
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Kumar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 884 has held as under :-
"44. It is now settled law that if a citizen, who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against high Government officials or influential persons, prays before a Court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged 16 offence by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of the State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, has made the following observations pointing out the situations where the prayer for investigation by the CBI should be allowed:
"70.... In so far 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 powers 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. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."
(emphasis supplied)
45. In the above decision, it was also pointed out that the same court in Secretary, Minor 17 Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521, had said that an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency.
46. In an appropriate case when the Court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in a proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in the case and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the Court may be justified in such circumstances to handover the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI. By now it is well-settled that even after the filing of the charge sheet the court is empowered in an appropriate case to handover the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI.
47. The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution as underlined by this Court in the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (supra) as adverted to herein above, observing that although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down in this regard, yet it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have levelled some allegations against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional 18 situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. We are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or re-investigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re- investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency.
48. The above principle has been reiterated in K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai, (2013) 12 SCC
480. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. speaking for a three- Judge Bench of this Court held:
"13. ...This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the 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 19 cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the 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. ..."
49. Elaborating on this principle, this Court further observed:
"17. ... the Court could exercise its constitutional powers 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 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."
50. The Court reiterated that an investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases". One factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies." This observation must be read with the observations made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (supra), that mere allegations against the police do not 20 constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation.
51. In Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753, one of us, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. dissenting) noted the dictum in a line of precedents laying down the principle that the accused "does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency". In reiterating this principle, this Court relied upon its earlier decisions in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 1, E. Sivakumar v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 365, and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542. This Court observed:
"30...the consistent view of this Court is that the accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for court- monitored investigation."
52. It has been held by this Court in CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, 1997 Cri LJ 63, that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
53. The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used 21 "sparingly" and only "in exceptional circumstances". In assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power."
15. The Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 480 has held as under :-
"13. 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 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 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 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 22 Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India [(1992) 1 SCC 397] , R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. [1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 248 : AIR 1994 SC 38] , Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab [(1994) 1 SCC 616 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 455 : AIR 1994 SC 1023] , Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 264] , Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi [(1996) 6 SCC 500 : AIR 1997 SC 314] , Disha v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 13 SCC 337 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 628 : AIR 2011 SC 3168] , Rajender Singh Pathania v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2011) 13 SCC 329 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 873] and State of Punjab v.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [(2011) 14 SCC 770 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1034 : AIR 2012 SC 364] .)
14. In Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1006] 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 persons in a fake encounter and 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 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 investigation when 23 allegations and offences were mostly against top officials. Thus, the Court held that even if a charge-sheet has been filed by the State investigating agency there is no prohibition for transferring the investigation to any other independent investigating agency.
15. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401] 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, 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 fundamental rights. (See also Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan [(2011) 3 SCC 758 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 75 : AIR 2011 SC 1254] .)
16. This Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440] held : (SCC p. 416, para 31) "31. ... this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them."
24(emphasis supplied)
17. In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the Court could exercise its constitutional powers 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 allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instill confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased."
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Vishal Tiwari vs. UOI and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 414 has held as under :-
"32. This Court does have the power under Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer an investigation from the authorized agency to the CBI or constitute an SIT. However, such powers must be exercised sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances. Unless the authority statutorily entrusted with the power to investigate portrays a glaring, willful and deliberate inaction in carrying out the investigation the court will ordinarily not supplant the authority which has been vested with the power to investigate. Such powers must not be exercised by the court in the absence of cogent justification indicative of a likely failure of justice in the absence of the exercise of the power to transfer. The petitioner must place on record strong evidence indicating 25 that the investigating agency has portrayed inadequacy in the investigation or prima facie appears to be biased.
33.Recently, in Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 12, this Court, speaking through one of us (JB Pardiwala, J) relying on a judgement of a three judge Bench of this Court in K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police CBCID South Zone, Chennai13 reiterated the principle that the power to transfer an investigation to investigating agencies such as the CBI must be invoked only in rare and exceptional cases. Further, no person can insist that the offence be investigated by a specific agency since the plea can only be that the offence be investigated properly. The Court held as follows:
"49. Elaborating on this principle, this Court further observed:
"17. ... the Court could exercise its constitutional powers 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 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."
50. The Court reiterated that an investigation may be transferred to the CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases". One factor 26 that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies." This observation must be read with the observations made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (supra), that mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation. ...
52. It has been held by this Court in CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, 1997 Cri LJ 63, that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
53. The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used "sparingly" and only "in exceptional circumstances". In assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power."
(emphasis supplied)
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Royden Harold Buthello and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in AIR 2023 SC 1231 has held as under :-
27"17. Having noted this aspect of the matter it is appropriate to refer to the decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, (2010) 3 SCC 571 wherein it is held as hereunder:--
"70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. 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. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."28
Also Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 9 SCC 795 wherein it is held hereunder:--
"12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on the Court's satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can possibly be prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extraordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee agency will necessarily, much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls that are commonplace when State Police investigates matters of some significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer in the outside 29 agency in such cases itself rests on the independence of that agency from such or similar other considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent.
13. Having said that we need to remind ourselves that this Court has, in several diverse situations, exercised the power of transfer. In Inder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court transferred the investigation to CBI even when the investigation was being monitored by senior officers of the State Police. So also in R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. investigation was transferred even when the State Police was doing the needful under the supervision of an officer of the rank of an Inspector General of Police and the State Government had appointed a one-member Commission of Inquiry headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court to enquire into the matter. This Court held that however faithfully the police may carry out the investigation the same will lack credibility since the allegations against the police force involved in the encounter resulting in the killing of several persons were very serious. The transfer to CBI, observed this Court, "would give reassurance to all those concerned including the relatives of the deceased that an independent agency was looking into the matter".30
14. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. CBI wherein this Court upheld the order transferring investigation from the State Police to CBI in connection with a sex scandal even when the High Court had commended the investigation conducted by the DIG and his team of officers. In Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, this Court directed transfer of the Chit Fund Scam in the States of West Bengal and Orissa from the State Police to CBI keeping in view the involvement of several influential persons holding high positions of power and influence or political clout.
15. Suffice it to say that transfers have been ordered in varied situations but while doing so the test applied by the Court has always been whether a direction for transfer, was keeping in view the nature of allegations, necessary with a view to making the process of discovery of truth credible. What is important is that this Court has rarely, if ever, viewed at the threshold the prayer for transfer of investigation to CBI with suspicion. There is no reluctance on the part of the Court to grant relief to the victims or their families in cases, where intervention is called for, nor is it necessary for the petitioner seeking a transfer to make out a cast-iron case of abuse or neglect on the part of the State Police, before ordering a transfer. Transfer can be ordered once the Court is satisfied on the available material that such a course will promote the cause of justice, in a given case."
"18. The above-noted decisions are in fact cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the 31 appellants to contend that this Court should exercise its extraordinary power to refer to the matter to CBI in the instant facts. In that regard, it is also necessary to note that the High Court on the other hand has referred to the various decisions on the said aspect and has also taken into consideration the recent decision in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, (2020) 14 SCC 12 wherein the entire aspect has been crystalized and this Court has held that the power to transfer an investigation must be used sparingly. The relevant portion reads as hereunder:--
"52. In assessing the contention for the transfer of the investigation to CBI, we have factored into the decision-making calculus the averments on the record and submissions urged on behalf of the petitioner. We are unable to find any reason that warrants a transfer of the investigation to CBI. In holding thus, we have applied the tests spelt out in the consistent line of precedent of this Court. They have not been fulfilled. An individual under investigation has a legitimate expectation of a fair process which accords with law. The displeasure of an accused person about the manner in which the investigation proceeds or an unsubstantiated allegation (as in the present case) of a conflict of interest against the police conducting the investigation must not derail the legitimate course of law and warrant the invocation of the extraordinary power of this Court to transfer an investigation to CBI. Courts assume the extraordinary jurisdiction to transfer an investigation in exceptional situations to ensure that the sanctity of the 32 administration of criminal justice is preserved. While no inflexible guidelines are laid down, the notion that such a transfer is an "extraordinary power" to be used "sparingly"
and "in exceptional circumstances" comports with the idea that routine transfers would belie not just public confidence in the normal course of law but also render meaningless the extraordinary situations that warrant the exercise of the power to transfer the investigation. Having balanced and considered the material on record as well as the averments of and submissions urged by the petitioner, we find that no case of the nature which falls within the ambit of the tests enunciated in the precedents of this Court has been established for the transfer of the investigation."
"19. Hence it is clear that though there is no inflexible guideline or a straightjacket formula laid down, the power to transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power. It is to be used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts and circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without the intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating agency which has the expertise."
18. The Supreme Court in the case of Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 802 has held as under :-
"34. In Himanshu Kumar [Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 12 33 SCC 592 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884] , this Court had occasion to consider the power of the Court to transfer investigation to any other independent agency. After taking into consideration the catena of judgments on the point, it is reiterated that investigation may be transferred to CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases". In SCC paras 44 to 55, it is observed and held as under:
"44. It is now settled law that if a citizen, who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against high Government officials or influential persons, prays before a Court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offence by CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking.
45. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in State of W.B. v. 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] , has made the following observations pointing out the situations where the prayer for investigation by CBI should be allowed : (SCC p. 602, para
70) "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 powers 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 34 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. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.'
46. In the above decision, it was also pointed out that the same Court in Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya [Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg.
Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC 521 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 775] , had said that an order directing an enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency.
47. In an appropriate case when the Court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in ... a proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in the case and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the Court may be justified in such circumstances to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI. By now it is well settled that even after the filing of the charge-sheet the Court is empowered in an appropriate case to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI.
3548. The extraordinary power of the constitutional courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution as underlined by this Court 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, yet it was highlighted that such an order cannot be passed as a matter of routine or merely because the parties have 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 the investigation or where the incident may have national or international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights.
49. We are conscious of the fact that though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge- sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analysed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern 36 and the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency.
50. The above principle has been reiterated in K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police [K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] . Dr B.S. Chauhan, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court held : (SCC p. 485, para 13) '13. ... This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the 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 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."
51. Elaborating on this principle, this Court further observed : (K.V. Rajendran case [K.V. Rajendran v. Supt. of Police, (2013) 12 SCC 480 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 578] , SCC p. 487, para 17) '17. ... the Court could exercise its constitutional powers 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 37 authorities are involved, or the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency 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.'
52. The Court reiterated that an investigation may be transferred to CBI only in "rare and exceptional cases". One factor that courts may consider is that such transfer is "imperative" to retain "public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies." This observation must be read with the observations made by the Constitution Bench 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] , that mere allegations against the police do not constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation.
53. In Romila Thapar v. Union of India [Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 638] , one of us, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J. dissenting) noted the dictum in a line of precedents laying down the principle that the accused "does not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency". In reiterating this principle, this Court relied upon its earlier decisions in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526] , Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India [Sanjiv Rajendra 38 Bhatt v. Union of India, (2016) 1 SCC 1 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 193 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 1] , E. Sivakumar v. Union of India [E. Sivakumar v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 365 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 49] , and Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala [Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala, (2008) 3 SCC 542 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 9] . This Court observed : (Romila Thapar case [Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 638] , SCC p. 776, para
30) '30. ... the consistent view of this Court is that the accused cannot ask for changing the investigating agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including for court-
monitored investigation.'
54. It has been held by this Court in CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi [CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996) 11 SCC 253 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 88 : 1997 Cri LJ 63] , that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
55. The principle of law that emerges from the precedents of this Court is that the power to transfer an investigation must be used "sparingly" and only "in exceptional circumstances". In assessing the plea urged by the petitioner that the investigation must be transferred to CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power."
3919. Thus, it is clear that investigation should be transferred to CBI only in rare of exceptional cases.
20. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised following grounds :-
I. Because, the ponzi scheme is being run by a group of people who lure general public into investing money in their business in turn, they will be offered double the amount invested and many people fall into the trap of this financial fraud.
II. Because, there are serious allegations against the accused involving crores of rupees in the scam which is a public money and from the conduct of the authorities it can safely be construed that they have lost interest in further investigating the matter.
III. Because, the scheme affected many villagers and citizens of Balaghat due to which many newspapers and media channels reported and alerted the citizens about the said fraud. It is further submitted that many people who invested in the said ponzi scheme committed suicide as they were left with no other option because people invested all the life savings in the scheme.
IV. Because, when days were passing by without any proper investigation and enquiry into the matter as continuously more and more people were affecting, the petitioner being a public representative of his district preferred a detailed representation dated 14.05.2022 to the government of India whereby a perusal of the representation would demonstrate all the events leading to the fraud and till date no proper investigation is being done by the police authorities.40
V. Because, despite direction by the mantralaya, Vallabh bhawan Bhopal, the authorities of the district are not taking any strict action. VI. Because the petitioner has even preferred for cancellation of bail vide MCRC no. 40301/2022 which is still sub-judice before this Hon'ble court.
VII. Because, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. R. Antulay Av. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1531 it has been held that "punishment of the offender in the interests of the society being one of the objects behind penal statutes enacted for the larger good of the society, the right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into a straight- jacket formula of locus standi." VIII. Because, when days were passing by without any proper investigation and enquiry into the matter as continuously more and more people were affecting, the petitioner being a public representative (Ex-MLA) of his district preferred a detailed representation dated 14.05.2022 to the government of India whereby all the events leading to the fraud was laid and till date no proper investigation is being done by the police authorities and no reply has been given to the representation of the petitioner.
IX. Because the petitioner along-with the citizens of state were shocked to hear that this Hon'ble court has granted bail to the main accused in the scam. Be that as it may, the very next day of granting bail, Rs. 1.35 crores have been found by the police authorities which belong to the accused and this further shows that no proper inquiry have been done in this major financial fraud. It is trite to mention that, the 41 people were left in fear that, still no proper investigation has been done.
X. Because even after filing the RTI, the petitioner could not obtain any information about the investigation which the authorities failed to initiate/conclude.
XI. Because the petitioner also preferred representation dated 03.06.2022 to the Hon'ble President of India whereby the Cabinet secretariate took cognizance into the matter and directed investigation vide letter dated 08.07.2022 into the matter to Upper Secretary Finance Department, the said letter was also forwarded to the Government of M.P. but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities."
21. From plain reading of these grounds, it is clear that no allegations have been made against investigating agency warranting transfer of investigation from local police to CBI. Even otherwise, counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any lapses either in the investigation or in the charge sheet warranting further investigation by the CBI.
22. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 42 JITENDRA KUMAR Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=PRINCIPAL BENCH INDORE, 2.5.4.20=a650f9cd964b96221568096ac01ab1bf019e0b76f6fc652f8 PAROUHA 93c6324a2f64a5a, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=627378D3EE51220F5E81130EECF5ABBEC55EBB6B78 033E5FF10402B19143AD99, cn=JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2024.05.02 22:28:04 -07'00' JP