The Supreme Court has held that a prospective accused cannot challenge or interfere with an ongoing investigation, including one being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
“Once an FIR is registered and the investigation has begun, the decision to assign the case to the CBI cannot be questioned by a person who is only a suspect or likely to be accused,”
the Court stated.
The ruling came while dismissing an appeal against the Karnataka High Court's direction to hand over a murder investigation to the CBI. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the matter.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Magistrate’s Cognizance Order Cannot Be Faulted for Lack of Detailed Reasons
Background of the Case
The case involved the murder of a businessman closely linked to former MP D.K. Adikeshavalu. The Appellant was named as an accused in the FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating, criminal conspiracy, and forgery.
Initially, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to handle the case. However, due to dissatisfaction with the SIT’s work, the trial court ordered further investigation. Unhappy with this, the Respondents approached the Karnataka High Court through a Writ Petition, seeking a CBI probe. The High Court allowed it.
The Appellant then moved the Supreme Court, arguing that they were not given a chance to be heard before the CBI was brought in.
“The accused has no right to question the manner or method of investigation. Till the final report is submitted, the accused has no legal standing in the investigative process,”
the Court said, citing the case of Union of India v. W.N. Chadha (1993).
Read Also:- Supreme Court Suggests Vote Share Mandate for Unopposed Candidates to Strengthen Democracy
It further explained that under criminal law, an accused person is not entitled to be heard during the investigation phase, except in very limited circumstances specified in law. Even in complaint cases, the accused cannot participate until the court issues a process.
“Certain sections of the Code allow for hearing the accused under special conditions, but this case does not fall under them,”
the Court noted.
“We affirm the High Court’s decision and dismiss the appeal. The CBI must complete the investigation within 8 months. The Karnataka police should fully cooperate and transfer all case files to the CBI within 15 days. If the CBI files a chargesheet, it should be submitted before the CBI Court in Karnataka,”
the Supreme Court directed.
Case Title: RAMACHANDRAIAH & ANR. VERSUS M. MANJULA & ORS.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aman Lekhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Aniket Seth, Adv. Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tomy Chacko, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Ms. Shaurya Mishra, Adv. Ms. Tualia Rehman, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, Adv. Mr. Akshat Malpani, Adv. Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Adv. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. V V V Pattabhi Ram, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Khushboo Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR Mr. Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Fatesh Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Adv. Ms. Pushpa Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Junaid Mohd Junaid, Adv.
