CBI Investigation Not Open To Challenge By Prospective Suspect: Supreme Court Orders CBI Investigation Into Alleged Murder Of K Raghunath
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power to direct CBI to conduct investigation is to be exercised sparingly and such orders should not be passed in a routine manner.
The Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct further investigation into the “mysterious death” of K. Raghunath, who was closely related to D.K. Adikeshavalu, a member of Parliament, following allegations of murder made by the deceased’s wife.
The Court held that once an FIR is registered and an investigation has taken place, direction for an investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused. The deceased allegedly owned multiple properties and after D.K. Adikeshavalu's death, disputes arose concerning the properties, with allegations that the deceased was pressured to transfer ownership by the close associates of the Appellant.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that “once an FIR is registered and investigation has taken place, direction for an investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused. The matter for entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion of the Court.”
Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani appeared for the Appellants, while ASG KM Nataraj and Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
In 2019, the deceased was found hanging in a guest house. Initially, his death was recorded as an unnatural death, with his son stating he suspected no foul play. However, his wife later filed a complaint alleging murder against several individuals, claiming her husband had expressed fear for his life.
The police's refusal to register the complaint led to a private complaint and a Magistrate's order for investigation, resulting in the registration of multiple FIRs. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed, but its investigation was deemed unsatisfactory by the Magistrate, who ordered further investigation by the HAL Police Station.
The High Court, in the impugned Order, directed the CBI to conduct further investigation, citing a lack of jurisdiction in the Magistrate's Order for further investigation by the HAL Police Station.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held, “The learned Magistrate while directing further investigation and the High Court, under the impugned order, has highlighted the glaring defects in the investigation which we have avoided to reiterate so that it does not influence the CBI investigation. However, the fact remains that the truth surrendering the death of K. Raghunath needs to be settled after a complete and fair investigation by the CBI which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, has rightly been directed by the High Court.”
“High Court or the Supreme Court being Constitutional Court is vested with extra-ordinary power to direct CBI investigation depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The Constitutional Courts are expectantly and reverently entrusted with the duty to serve justice being a sovereign and premiere constitutional institution,” the Bench remarked.
The Court reiterated that the power to direct CBI to conduct investigation is to be exercised sparingly and such orders should not be passed in a routine manner.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We, accordingly, affirm the order of the High Court and dismiss the appeals. The CBI shall conduct the investigation within a period of 08 months and the State of Karnataka shall render all possible assistance to the CBI to make a fair investigation into the crime. The entire papers shall be handed over by the concerned police to the CBI within 15 days. If the CBI proceeds to file chargesheet, the same shall be submitted before the jurisdictional CBI Court in the State of Karnataka.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ramachandraiah & Anr. v. M. Manjula & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 556)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani; AOR G. Balaji and Tomy Chacko; Advocates Neeleshwar Pavani and Shaurya Mishra
Respondents: ASG K. M. Nataraj; AAG Nishanth Patil; Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat; AOR Mahesh Thakur, V. N. Raghupathy, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Paras Nath Singh and Sadashiv; Advocates Anuparna Bordoloi, Geetanjali Bedi, Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Anusha R, Revanta Solanki, Ayush P. Shah, Vignesh Adithiya S, V. V. V. Pattabhi Ram, Prashant Rawat, Purnendu Bajpai, Rajat Nair, et al