Transfer of investigation requires exceptional grounds; criminal contempt needs real interference with justice, not mere allegations or document exchange.

Transfer of a criminal investigation to CBI or a fresh SIT is warranted only in exceptional cases where unfairness or failure of justice is shown; a party has no right to insist on a particular investigating agency. On the facts described, both criminal complaints had already been investigated, chargesheets were filed, and the record did not disclose circumstances justifying removal of the investigation from the State machinery. Criminal contempt requires real and substantial interference with the administration of justice, not merely adverse allegations, consultations with others, or exchange of documents and e-mails. The contempt request was also treated as time-barred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, so no contempt action was initiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the investigation in the two criminal cases required transfer to an independent agency or a specially constituted SIT. (ii) Whether the materials placed on record made out a case for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the investigation in the two criminal cases required transfer to an independent agency or a specially constituted SIT.

Analysis: The scope of the first case was confined to whether the affidavit attributed to the complainant had been procured in the alleged manner, and the second case concerned hacking and tampering of an e-mail account. The Court found that both matters had already been investigated, chargesheets had been filed, and the allegations did not disclose such exceptional circumstances as would justify shifting the investigation away from the State machinery. The petitioner had no legal right to insist on a particular investigating agency, and the request was also an attempt to widen the scope of inquiry beyond the actual complaints. The Court further noted that the earlier SIT had already examined the larger background and had concluded that the petitioner's claimed presence in the meeting of 27.02.2002 was not established.

Conclusion: No case was made out for transfer of investigation to CBI or constitution of a fresh SIT.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials placed on record made out a case for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that the alleged disclosures, e-mail exchanges, and sharing of documents did not show any real prejudice amounting to substantial interference with the administration of justice. Consultation with others, even outsiders to litigation, was not by itself contemptuous, and the material did not establish scandalising of the Court or obstruction of judicial proceedings. The applications seeking contempt were also held to be time-barred under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Conclusion: No case for criminal contempt was made out, and the prayer for contempt action was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the ongoing investigation process, refused to order transfer to any independent agency, and found no basis to commence contempt proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A party has no right to choose its investigating agency, and transfer of investigation is warranted only in exceptional cases where unfairness or failure of justice is shown; criminal contempt requires real and substantial interference with the administration of justice, not merely adverse allegations, consultations, or document exchanges.

---