M.K. Kushalappa vs K.J. George

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, C. J. - These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated September 20, 2016, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, dismissing a batch of writ petitions, declining the prayer for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI, for brevity).

The deceased, Mr. M.K. Ganapathy, was a member of the Karnataka Police Service. While he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Madikeri, he, unfortunately, committed suicide on July 7, 2016. As it was an unnatural death, an Unnatural Death Case was reported.

The statement of the petitioner No.1, who is the father of the deceased police officer, was recorded in the course of the investigation.

As the police was not registering such unnatural death case as a crime, the son of the deceased filed a private complaint before the learned magistrate alleging that the accused persons had abetted for commission of suicide by the deceased.

The learned magistrate referred the matter to the police for investigation. The police registered Crime No.89 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Immediately after the incident, the accused no.1, who has been a minister at the relevant point of time, tendered his resignation. The Additional Director General of Police, who has been the accused No.2, was sent on leave. The Inspector General of Police, who has been the accused No.3, was sent on Central deputation.

The Superintendent of Police, Madikeri, took over the investigation himself and continued with the investigation.

In the meantime, a public interest litigation was moved before this court, being W.P. No.38759 of 2016, inter alia seeking for investigation by the CBI in the case of suicide of the deceased.

When the said case was taken up for hearing, this court was informed by Mr. A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General, that in pursuance to the order of the magistrate, a case was registered and it was under investigation. We, are, further informed that Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana, a retired Judge of this court, has, also, been appointed as the Commissioner for holding a judicial probe in connection with the incident.

Recording such statement, this court did not feel it proper to exercise the discretion to direct investigation by the CBI. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated July 26, 2016.

Two of the accused persons, who are police officers, approached this court, invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the proceedings. On July 28,2016, the said Criminal Petition No.5285 of 2016 was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this court in future.

However, the Hon''ble Single Judge recorded the assurance of the learned Advocate General for the State that an officer higher in rank than the police officials involved in the matter, would be entrusted with the duty of overseeing the investigation in order to ensure a fair and free investigation.

On August 3, 2016, the Director General and Inspector General of Police issued an order transferring investigation of the case to the Criminal Investigation Department for further investigation. The investigation that was pending in Madikeri town police station was, also, clubbed together for investigation.

The writ petitions were filed on September 15, 2016, by the father and brother of the deceased, again, seeking for investigation by the CBI.

On September 17, 2016, the Criminal Investigation Department submitted a ''B'' report, colloquially known as ''closure report.'' The private complainant has not. as yet, filed any objection. The matter is still pending before the learned magistrate.

Mr. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned advocate for the petitioners, relying upon various decisions of the Supreme Court of India, vehemently argues that as a Cabinet Minister and two very senior police officers are involved in the case, the petitioners feel that they are not getting justice in the hands of the Criminal Investigation Department, and therefore, the crime should be further investigated by the CBI.

The Hon''ble Single Judge, by the order impugned, rejected the contention of Mr. Pavana Chandra Shetty and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, these writ appeals.

We are of the opinion that transferring of investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases only. All steps were taken for ensuring a fair investigation. Superior officers than that of the two accused persons were appointed by the investigating agency, and the Director General of Police oversaw the investigation throughout.

The accused no.1, who has been the minister at the relevant point of time, resigned to facilitate proper investigation.

We are, also, of the opinion, concurring with the views of the Hon''ble Single Judge, that the materials placed before this court are not sufficient to direct an enquiry by the CBI.

The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. However, we record that we have not gone into the merits of the closure report submitted by the Criminal Investigation Department. It shall be open to the learned magistrate to consider the report in accordance with law.