CBI transfer and public law compensation require exceptional grounds and fair hearing before adverse orders are made.

CBI transfer is warranted only in exceptional cases showing bias, influence of powerful persons, or other special circumstances; on the facts, the routine complaint against police personnel did not justify such intervention, so the direction for CBI investigation was set aside. Public law compensation for alleged violation of fundamental rights cannot be awarded without a proper enquiry, examination of material, and hearing to the officials concerned; because no such procedure was followed and the State's appearance did not replace notice to the individuals accused, the compensation award was also set aside. The quashing of proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's direction for CBI investigation and award of compensation could stand when the affected officials had not been heard; (ii) whether compensation for alleged violation of fundamental rights could be granted without a proper enquiry and opportunity to rebut the allegations.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court's direction for CBI investigation and award of compensation could stand when the affected officials had not been heard.

Analysis: The order under challenge was passed against individual police officials and the Magistrate on allegations of abuse of power and illegal detention, yet there was nothing to show that they had been given any opportunity of appearance or defence. The State's appearance could not substitute notice to those individually accused. A direction for CBI investigation is justified only in exceptional situations, where the investigation is shown to be biased or the matter involves powerful persons or top officials; such circumstances were absent here. The Court also held that the grievance related to a routine incident involving constables and a head constable, and therefore did not warrant transfer to the CBI.

Conclusion: The direction for CBI investigation was unjustified and liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether compensation for alleged violation of fundamental rights could be granted without a proper enquiry and opportunity to rebut the allegations.

Analysis: Monetary compensation in writ jurisdiction is a public law remedy available only where the violation of fundamental rights is clear and after proper enquiry. Before awarding compensation, the court must examine the material, permit objections, and afford hearing to the persons against whom allegations are made. On the facts, no such enquiry was conducted; the High Court acted only on the status report and imposed token compensation without hearing the concerned officials. The Court therefore found the award of compensation unsustainable.

Conclusion: The award of compensation was not justified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in substantial part, with the directions for CBI investigation and compensation being set aside, while the quashing of the proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of investigation to the CBI is warranted only in exceptional cases showing bias, powerful influence, or involvement of higher authorities, and public law compensation for alleged fundamental-rights violations cannot be granted without a proper enquiry and hearing to the affected persons.

---