Supreme Court Orders CBI Probe in Suspicious Death Case: Key Highlights from Mandakini Diwan v. High Court of Chhattisgarh

DATE- 11 Sept 2024

In Mandakini Diwan & Anr. v. High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2024 INSC 666), the Supreme Court dealt with a significant case regarding allegations of bias and influence in the investigation of a suspicious death. The appellants, the mother and brother of the deceased, sought an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the death of the deceased, Ranjana Diwan, who was married to a judicial officer, respondent no. 7, Manvendra Singh.

Facts

The deceased, Ranjana Diwan, was married to Manvendra Singh, a judicial officer who had joined the Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Services in 2013. On 12th May 2016, Ranjana was found dead under suspicious circumstances. The appellants received a phone call informing them that Ranjana had committed suicide by hanging. When the family rushed to Dantewada, they alleged that they were not provided with key documents, such as the post-mortem report.

The post-mortem report, which was eventually accessed, revealed six ante-mortem injuries on Ranjana's body, raising suspicion about the cause of her death. Despite these findings, the police treated the case as a suicide, closing the investigation without registering an FIR. The appellants alleged that due to the influence of respondent no. 7, a senior judicial officer, the police had been biased and had not conducted a fair investigation.

The appellants repeatedly sought a fair and thorough investigation, filing several complaints to the authorities. However, no FIR was registered, and the case was closed, maintaining the suicide narrative. Left with no other option, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Chhattisgarh under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking an independent investigation and appropriate reliefs, including the registration of an FIR.

The High Court dismissed the petition on 10th May 2023, stating that the appellants had an alternate remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows them to approach a Magistrate for directing the police to register an FIR. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Issues

The main issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition and directing the appellants to pursue the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, despite allegations of bias against respondent no. 7, a senior judicial officer.

2. Whether the circumstances of the case warranted the transfer of the investigation to an independent agency such as the CBI.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. High Court's Dismissal of the Petition:

The Supreme Court first addressed the High Court’s decision, which directed the appellants to pursue an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. This provision allows a person to approach a Magistrate and request an order for the police to investigate or register an FIR. However, the appellants argued that since the accused, respondent no. 7, was a senior judicial officer, any investigation conducted by a Magistrate subordinate to him would be influenced by his position.

The Supreme Court agreed with the appellants, noting that while Section 156(3) provides a legal remedy, the unique circumstances of this case—particularly the influence respondent no. 7 might have on the judicial and police machinery—justified their apprehension. The Court found that the appellants had reasonable grounds to believe that a fair investigation could not be conducted at the local level, given the senior position of respondent no. 7.

2. Need for Independent Investigation:

The Court acknowledged the appellants’ concerns regarding the police’s handling of the case, especially considering the six ante-mortem injuries discovered on the deceased’s body. Despite these injuries, the police closed the case as a suicide without registering an FIR or conducting a thorough investigation. The Supreme Court pointed out that this raised serious questions about the integrity and fairness of the investigation, particularly when no explanation was provided for the injuries.

The Court also referenced past rulings, such as State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010), which emphasized that an independent investigation is necessary in cases where the fairness of the local investigation is in doubt. The Court reiterated that the power to transfer investigations to the CBI or any other independent agency should be exercised sparingly and cautiously but is warranted when it is necessary to ensure justice and maintain public confidence in the system.

3. Role of the CBI:

The Court discussed the possibility of handing over the investigation to the CBI, as suggested by the Solicitor General of India during the hearings. The Solicitor General argued that appointing an independent agency such as the CBI would restore confidence in the investigation and ensure that the real cause of the deceased’s death is uncovered. The Court agreed, stating that given the serious allegations of bias and the failure of the local police to conduct a proper investigation, the involvement of the CBI was necessary to ensure a fair inquiry into the incident.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition. The Court directed the CBI to conduct a thorough and fair investigation into the death of Ranjana Diwan and submit a report to the Court. The Court clarified that if the CBI finds sufficient evidence, it should register an FIR and proceed in accordance with the law. However, if the CBI concludes that no further investigation is warranted, it may close the proceedings.

The Supreme Court also directed the State of Chhattisgarh to cooperate fully with the CBI in providing all necessary documents and support for the investigation. The Court emphasized that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case and that the CBI’s investigation should be free from any influence from its judgment.

Conclusion

In Mandakini Diwan v. High Court of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of fair investigations, particularly when the integrity of the local authorities is in question. By transferring the investigation to the CBI, the Court sought to ensure that justice is served and public confidence in the judicial process is maintained. The ruling reinforces the Court’s commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to a fair and impartial investigation in cases involving suspicious deaths.