Prospective Accused Cannot Challenge Order For CBI Investigation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that it is not open for the prospective accused to challenge the underway investigation.

Holding thus, the Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision to order an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”).

“Therefore, we are of the considered view 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.”, the court observed.

The Case

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing the case where the Appellant was aggrieved by the High Court's decision to order a CBI investigation in a murder case of a businessman who was a close aide of former Member of Parliament D.K. Adikeshavalu.

The Appellant was arrayed as an accused in a FIR registered under Sections 34, 120B, 468, 465, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

A SIT was set up to investigate the case, however, being dissatisfied with the SIT's investigation, the trial court ordered further investigation.

Dissatisfied by the trial court's decision, the Respondents filed a Writ Petition before the High Court seeking writ of mandamus to direct investigation by CBI, which was allowed by the High Court.

Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court arguing that before ordering investigation to the CBI, the Appellant was not heard.

Decision

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra, referring to the case of Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, (1993) Supp (4) SCC 260 observed that an accused has no right to participate or challenge the mode/manner of investigation before charges are framed.

“More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 o'f the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are various judicial pronouncements to this effect, but we feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out that there are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under certain specified circumstances.”, the court observed in W.N. Chadha's case.

Applying the law to the facts of the case and affirming the High Court's decision, the Court observed:

“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.”

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed. 

Case Title: RAMACHANDRAIAH & ANR. VERSUS M. MANJULA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.