Case Title: Mukta Dabholkar & Anr. Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Case No: SLP (Crl) No(s) 6539/2023
Decided on: 18th April, 2023
CORAM: A. S. Gadkari and Prakash D. Naik, JJ.
Facts of the Case
The appeal was brought by the daughter and son of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, who was tragically murdered by unidentified gunmen on August 20, 2013, in Pune. The petitioners asked for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order appointing an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a CBI official with the rank of Additional Director General of Police in Maharashtra. The SIT was formed to conduct a thorough investigation into the plot and murder of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. The petitioners also asked the court to supervise the planned SIT’s probe and give additional consequential reliefs. After hearing arguments from numerous counsels representing various parties, the court reviewed the documents and observed that a prior decision on May 9, 2014, had previously directed that the inquiry be transferred from the Deccan Police Station in Pune to the Central Bureau of inquiry (CBI). Following that, the CBI conducted the inquiry, and many directives were issued and followed.
The petitioners contended that the deaths of Dr. Dabholkar, Comrade Pansare, Gauri Lankesh, Professor M.M. Kalburgi, and the Nalasopara case were linked, implying a coordinated effort. They said that the accused mastermind of these killings had not been captured. The court did observe, however, that all of the defendants in the current case had been arrested, and the CBI had presented a chargesheet, therefore commencing the trial (Sessions Case No. 706 of 2016).
The trial had questioned 18 witnesses as of March 29, 2023, with less than 5 witnesses remaining. The court accepted that the investigation was complete and that the trial was underway. The court referenced many Supreme Court cases, including Vineet Narain & Ors., K.V. Rajendran, Sushila Devi, and Shahid Balwa, to emphasise that the monitoring court’s function ends once a chargesheet is submitted. As a result, the court determined that further monitoring of the inquiry was unnecessary and dismissed the petition accordingly. As a result, associated criminal and interim petitions were also dismissed.
Legal Provisions
The statutory elements at issue appear to centre on the court’s ability to supervise investigations and the circumstances under which a judge may transfer an inquiry to an independent body. The petitioners, the deceased Dr. Narendra Dabholkar’s daughter and son, sought a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the formation of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a CBI officer of high rank to investigate the conspiracy and murder of Dr. Dabholkar. In reaching its verdict, the court relied on a number of legal concepts and decisions.
The court’s authority to transfer an inquiry from a state agency to an independent body like as the Central Bureau of inquiry (CBI) is a key legal provision. The court noted earlier judgements directing the probe to the CBI, emphasising the necessity for rare and extraordinary situations where the legitimacy of the state police is called into question and public trust in the impartiality of state authorities is at stake.
Furthermore, the court relied on Supreme Court cases, such as Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., to demonstrate that the court’s involvement in overseeing an inquiry normally stops after the charge-sheet is issued. The court emphasised that after the investigative agency has completed its investigation, filed a charge-sheet, and initiated legal procedures, continual court supervision may not be required, and the normal judicial process should take over. In essence, the legislative issues at issue include the court’s jurisdiction to transfer investigations, the conditions that necessitate such transfers, and the constraints on the court’s continuous surveillance of an investigation after the charge-sheet is filed and legal procedures have begun.
Issues
The legal issues in this case revolve around a petition filed by Dr. Narendra Dabholkar’s daughter and son, who were murdered in 2013, seeking the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction for the appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a CBI officer to investigate the conspiracy and murder of Dr. Dabholkar. The petitioners contend that the killings of Dr. Dabholkar, Comrade Pansare, Gauri Lankesh, Professor M.M. Kalburgi, and the Nalasopara case are linked and organised, with a same goal of deliberately eliminating particular persons or rationalists. The important legal question is whether the court should continue to oversee the investigation in light of the investigation’s conclusion, the filing of a charge-sheet, and the current trial.
The court analysed precedents, including Supreme Court rulings such as Vineet Narain & Ors., K.V. Rajendran, Sushila Devi, and Shahid Balwa. The court observes that once a charge-sheet is submitted and the inquiry is concluded, the normal course of law should resume. It emphasises that the court’s monitoring job usually concludes with the filing of the charge-sheet, and that additional monitoring is rarely considered required unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The court decides that there is no need for additional monitoring in this matter because the investigation has been concluded, a charge-sheet has been submitted, and the trial is underway, and dismisses the petition accordingly. The legal difficulties concentrate around striking a balance between the court’s role in monitoring investigations and the notion of allowing the regular legal procedure to proceed once certain milestones in a criminal case have been met.
Courts analysis and decision
In this case, the petitioners, Dr. Narendra Dabholkar’s daughter and son, sought the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other relevant order directing the appointment of an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a high-ranking CBI officer to investigate Dr. Narendra Dabholkar’s conspiracy and murder. The petitioners emphasised the interrelated nature of four deaths, including Dr. Dabholkar’s, implying a deliberate effort to remove specific persons or rationalists. In an order dated May 9, 2014, the court directed that the inquiry be transferred to the Central Bureau of inquiry (CBI). During the hearing, the judge noted the progress of the investigation, emphasising that all suspected suspects had been apprehended and a chargesheet mentioning 33 witnesses had been produced. As of March 29, 2023, the trial has already begun, with 18 witnesses being interviewed. The petitioners called for continuous oversight of the inquiry, emphasising the need of identifying the accused mastermind behind the four killings.
However, in its reasoning, the court resorted to precedents, namely Supreme Court rulings in instances like as Vineet Narain & Ors., K.V. Rajendran, Sushila Devi, and Shahid Balwa. It emphasised that once a chargesheet is filed, the regular course of law takes over, and the requirement for court supervision lessens. The court ruled that additional investigative monitoring was unnecessary because the investigation had been finished, a chargesheet had been submitted, and the trial had begun. As a result, the petition was dismissed, and the accompanying applications were also dismissed. The court determined that more surveillance was unnecessary, matching its ruling with established legal standards expressed by the Supreme Court in comparable cases.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
