Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambabu Singh Tomar Dead Through Smt. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033
1 WA-186-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 9 th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 186 of 2026
RAMBABU SINGH TOMAR (DEAD) THROUGH LR SMT. GUDDI
DEVI (DAUGHTER-IN-LAW)
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Chetan Kanungo - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ravindra Dixit - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, has been filed against the order dated 19.11.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.15661/2023, by which the learned Single Judge has directed the Superintendent of Police to look into the matter in relation to the FIR bearing Crime No.262/2004 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena.
2 . The first paragraph of subject matter in brief, which has been mentioned by the appellant, reads as under :
"The present appeal arises from a case where time itself has become an instrument of injustice, and where the constitutional promise of protection of life and liberty has failed not once, but repeatedly --first at the hands Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 2 WA-186-2026 of the police, then by prolonged State apathy, and finally by a mechanical judicial disposal. "
3. In view of the averment made by the petitioner/appellant that he is a victim of mechanical judicial disposal, counsel for the appellant was given a warning that, in case if the appellant fails to justify that he is a victim of mechanical judicial disposal, then the appellant may suffer contempt proceedings.
4 . Faced with such a situation, counsel for appellant tendered his apology for making a wild allegation by alleging that the appellant is a victim of mechanical judicial disposal and made a prayer for withdrawal of the said pleadings.
5. Accordingly, counsel for appellant was permitted to withdraw the first paragraph of the subject matter in brief, and the same shall be treated as nonest.
6. It is the case of the appellant that on 03/09/2004, the son of appellant, who was a 29-year-old Constable working in the Border Security Force, came home on sanctioned leave to perform religious rites. It is the case of the appellant that his son was shot dead by local police personnel near Mahavir Temple at village Dhaneta, District Morena. The State projected the said incident as an encounter, which was immediately contested by the eyewitnesses, who consistently maintained that Sobran Singh was unarmed, was not a criminal, and was shot dead by the police. An FIR was registered against the police officers under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that the investigation was not done in a Constitutional manner, but it was the result of institutional Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 3 WA-186-2026 paralysis. The investigation remained inconclusive and culminated only in the year 2015-16, and a closure report was filed giving a clean chit to all the accused police persons, attributing the registration of the FIR under alleged pressure of the villagers.
7. A notice was given to the appellant and, accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the closure report on the ground that it has not been filed after obtaining consent of the senior police officers, and returned the closure report for filing of same by competent person. Thereafter, the entire writ appeal has been drafted in the form of a novel. It is the case of the appellant that when the police failed to file the charge sheet even after rejection of the closure report, then he invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only for compensation but also for a fair investigation by an independent agency. The said writ petition has been disposed of by the writ Court by directing the Superintendent of Police to look into the matter in relation to the FIR bearing Crime No. 262/2004.
8 . Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that, after rejection of the closure report, it was obligatory on the part of the police to file the charge sheet. Twenty- one long years have passed; therefore, now the investigation should be handed over to an independent agency. Police protection for the family members of the appellant was also sought, and compensation of Rs.25 lakhs was also demanded from the police, apart from imposition of exemplary costs on the respondents for dereliction of duty and failure to investigate the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 4 WA-186-2026 matter in a fair, independent, and impartial manner on timely basis. Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have disposed of the writ petition by giving a direction to the Superintendent of Police to look into the matter.
9. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellant.
10. In the writ petition, the appellant had filed a copy of FIR bearing Crime No.262/2004 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena for offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC. The said FIR was lodged against Ashok Dixit, Mahendra Singh Sikarwar, Pancham, Vikrant Barua, Ramveer Gurjar and other police personnel. This FIR was lodged by the appellant, Rambabu Singh Tomar.
11. It is not out of place to mention here that the appellant was not the eyewitness, and in the FIR it was specifically mentioned that Ran Singh had witnessed the incident and he narrated the incident of cold-blooded murder by the police to the appellant.
12. On 21/10/2015, the police filed the closure report. A notice was issued to the appellant, and accordingly, his statement was also recorded by the CJM, Morena in MJCR No.389/2016. In that statement also, it was narrated by the appellant that he was informed by Ran Singh about the incident. However, the appellant did not examine Ran Singh in support of his objection. Thus, it is clear that not only the FIR was based on the so-called information given by Ran Singh, but even Ran Singh was not examined by the appellant when he was granted opportunity by the Court to support his objection. Thereafter, it appears that the closure report was not accepted by Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 5 WA-186-2026 CJM, Morena, and by order dated 27/03/2021, it was held by CJM Morena that the expunge report/closure report has to be filed by the Superintendent of Police, whereas the closure report has not been filed by the Superintendent of Police, and accordingly, the same was returned back to the police to file the closure report afresh through a competent police officer.
13. Thus, it is clear that the closure report/expunge report which was filed by the police was not considered by the CJM on merits, and it was not dismissed on merits, but it was returned back with a direction to file a fresh closure report by the competent authority. Thereafter, it appears that the police again went in hibernation and did not take any steps. Accordingly, the petitioner filed W.P. No.15661/2023 on 05/07/2023 for the reliefs mentioned in the said petition.
14. The respondents filed their return in the writ petition along with a letter written by SHO, Police Station Porsa, District Morena, to the SDO on 20/02/2025. In this letter, it is mentioned that on 15/01/2025, an expunge/closure report registered as MJCR No.36/2025 has been filed before the CJM, District Morena through the Superintendent of Police. Thus, it is clear that the expunge report or closure report is still pending before the Court of CJM, Morena, and it is not the case of the appellant that the said report has been accepted or rejected or that further investigation has been directed.
15. If the facts of this case are considered, then it is clear that not only the FIR was lodged by the appellant on the basis of hearsay information, but even his objection before the CJM, Morena was also based on hearsay Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 6 WA-186-2026 information, and Ran Singh, who was alleged to have witnessed the incident, was not examined by the appellant before the CJM, Morena in support of his objection.
16. Since the appellant/petitioner had alleged that he is a victim of mechanical judicial disposal, therefore, counsel for appellant was directed to justify the said stand.
17. It was fairly conceded by Shri Chetan Kanungo that once a closure report is filed, then the concerned Magistrate has three options, i.e., (i) to accept the closure report, (ii) to reject the closure report, or (iii) after pointing out the lapses, the Court can direct for further investigation. He fairly conceded that the closure report was neither accepted nor rejected, but it was returned on the ground that it was not presented by an authorized officer, as provided under Police Regulation No. 737.
18. Counsel for the appellant could not point out as to how the order passed by the CJM, Morena was incorrect. Therefore, the averment made by the appellant that he is a victim of mechanical judicial disposal is contemptuous, defamatory, and contrary to law, but since the appellant has already withdrawn the aforesaid allegation, therefore, no further observation in that regard is required, except that the appellant must remain vigilant in future in making such allegations, otherwise he shall be dealt with appropriately, and in future no permission would be granted to withdraw any baseless allegation made against the judiciary.
19. It appears that the factum of pendency of the closure report/expunge report before the CJM, Morena was not brought to the notice Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 7 WA-186-2026 of the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of W.P. No.15661/2023. The Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha & Others vs. Dinesh Mishra , reported in AIR 1968 SC 117 , has held as under :
"15. Then the question is, what is the position, when the Magistrate is dealing with a report submitted by the police, under Section 173, that no case is made out for sending up an accused for trial, which report, as we have already indicated, is called, in the area in question, as a 'final report'? Even in those cases, if the Magistrate agrees with the said report, he may accept the final report and close the proceedings. But there may be instances when the Magistrate may take the view, on a consideration of the final report, that the opinion formed by the police is not based on a full and complete investigation, in which case, in our opinion, the Magistrate will have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police, under Section 156(3), to make a further investigation. That is, if the Magistrate feels, after considering the final report, that the investigation is unsatisfactory, or incomplete, or that there is scope for further investigation, it will be open to the Magistrate to decline to accept the final report and direct the police to make further investigation, under Section 156(3). The police, after such further investigation, may submit a charge-sheet, or, again submit a final report, depending upon the further investigation made by them. If, ultimately, the Magistrate forms the opinion that the facts, set out in the final report, constitute an offence, he can take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190(1)(b), notwithstanding the contrary opinion of the police, expressed in the final report."
20. Thus, once the closure report is pending before the concerned Magistrate, then only he has the authority or power to decide the same after giving an opportunity to the complainant to file objections. There was no need for the learned Single Judge to direct the Superintendent of Police, Morena, to look into the matter, because if the Magistrate comes to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 8 WA-186-2026 conclusion that the expunge report/closure report which has been filed is not complete or there are certain lapses requiring further investigation, then further investigation can be directed by the Magistrate.
21. So far as the handing over of the investigation to an independent agency is concerned, the law is very clear on that point. The investigation cannot be handed over to an independent agency merely on the saying of the complainant.
22. 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.
23. 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 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) Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 9 WA-186-2026 "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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 10 WA-186-2026 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". Nirmal 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 11 WA-186-2026 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] a n d 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] 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."
24. 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 is not Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 12 WA-186-2026 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 13 WA-186-2026 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".
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharati Tamang v. Union of India, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 578 has held as under :-
"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.Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 14 WA-186-2026 41.6. While entrusting the criminal prosecution with other instrumentalities of State or by constituting a Special Investigation 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."
26. 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 15 WA-186-2026 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."
27. The Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Kumar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 592 : 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 offence by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking.
45. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 16 WA-186-2026 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)
46. In the above decision, it was also pointed out that the same court in Secretary, Minor 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.
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 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.
48. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 17 WA-186-2026 against the local police and can be invoked in exceptional 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.
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 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.
50. 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 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. ..."
5 1 . Elaborating on this principle, this Court further Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 18 WA-186-2026 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."
52. 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 constitute a sufficient basis to transfer the investigation.
53. 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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 19 WA-186-2026
54. 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.
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 the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power."
2 8 . 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 Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 20 WA-186-2026 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 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.
1 5 . I n 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 21 WA-186-2026 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."
(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."
29. The Supreme Court in the case of Vishal Tiwari vs. UOI and others reported in 2024 (4) SCC 115 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 22 WA-186-2026 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 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:
"51. 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."
52. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 23 WA-186-2026 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.
* * *
54. 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.
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 the CBI, we are guided by the parameters laid down by this Court for the exercise of that extraordinary power."
(emphasis supplied)
30. The Supreme Court in the case of Royden Harold Buthello and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 204 has held as under :-
"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 24 WA-186-2026 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."
18. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 25 WA-186-2026 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 26 WA-186-2026 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".
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 27 WA-186-2026 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."
"19. The above-noted decisions are in fact cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the 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 administration Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033
28 WA-186-2026 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."
"20. 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."
31. 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 29 WA-186-2026 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 30 WA-186-2026 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.
48. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 31 WA-186-2026 needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation 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.
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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 32 WA-186-2026 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 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 :
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 33 WA-186-2026 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."
32. Thus, it is clear that investigation should be transferred to CBI only in exceptional cases.
33. Therefore, now the only question for consideration is as to whether the appellant has made out a sufficient cause for transfer of the investigation to independent agency or not.
34. Only two grounds have been raised by appellant for transfer of investigation, i.e. (i.) non compliance of direction given by DIG, Chambal Range, pointing out certain number of points to be considered while investigating the matter, and it is the case of appellant that the investigation was not done accordingly, and (ii.) even after the ER was returned by the Court, the police sat quietly on the matter and did not file ER once again through authorized or competent authority.
35. So far as the act of the police in keeping the matter pending for 21 long years is concerned, the same has to be deprecated. However, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, since the closure report/ER is pending before the CJM, Morena, it would not be in the fitness of things to make any Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 34 WA-186-2026 comment on the manner of investigation by the police, as in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha (supra), it is within the exclusive domain of the CJM, Morena to decide as to whether the ER/closure report is to be accepted or not.
36. However, one thing is clear that so far as the delay is concerned, the appellant is equally responsible, because prior to filing of the closure report, he never approached the Court and never approached the High Court prior to filing of W.P. No.15661/2023. Since the matter is pending consideration before the CJM, Morena, this Court is of the considered opinion that even the learned Single Judge should not have directed the Superintendent of Police, Morena, to look into the matter.
37. From the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has not taken note of the pendency of the expunge report before the CJM, Morena.
38. Furthermore, except drafting the petition as if a novel is being written, no steps were taken by the appellant to point out the stage of ER No.36/2025 pending before the Court of CJM, Morena.
39. Even the State counsel was negligent in discharging his duty at the time of arguments in W.P. No. 15661/2023 and did not point out to the learned Single Judge that the ER/closure report is pending consideration before the CJM, Morena.
40. Under these circumstances, when the stage of the ER/closure report in MJCR No.36/2025 is not known, therefore, the order dated 19.11.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 15661/2023, is Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMAN TIWARI Signing time: 16-04-2026 06:45:48 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:12033 35 WA-186-2026 hereby set aside and it is directed that :
(i) If the expunge/closure report in MJCR No.36/2025 is still pending before the Court of CJM, Morena, then the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order.
(ii) If notices in MJCR No.36/2025 have not been issued to the appellant/complainant, then the CJM, Morena shall ensure that notice is immediately served on appellant/complainant and an opportunity is granted to the appellant/complainant to file his objections. The CJM, Morena shall also give an opportunity to the appellant to examine any witness in support of his objection.
(iii) After hearing both the parties, the CJM, Morena shall finally dispose of MJCR No.36/2025 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhinandan Jha (supra) . In the alternative, it is directed that if final order has already been passed in MJCR No.36/2025, then the appellant/complainant shall be free to take legal recourse as permissbile under the law.
41. With aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeal is finally disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
Aman
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMAN TIWARI
Signing time: 16-04-2026
06:45:48 PM