Transfer of criminal proceedings and CBI investigation require exceptional justification; a senior police special team may suffice.
Transfer of criminal proceedings between States requires a demonstrable reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done, and a bare claim that accused persons are influential is insufficient. On that basis, transfer of the connected quash petitions from the High Court of Kerala to the High Court of Delhi was refused. CBI investigation is an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances; finding no basis to displace the State police, the Court declined CBI transfer. However, in view of the allegations and the stage of the matter, further investigation was directed to continue through a senior-level special investigation team.
Issues: (i) Whether the criminal miscellaneous petitions pending before the High Court of Kerala should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi. (ii) Whether investigation in FIR No. 260 of 2013 should be transferred from the State police to the CBI or an independent agency, or whether a special investigation team should be constituted.
Issue (i): Whether the criminal miscellaneous petitions pending before the High Court of Kerala should be transferred to the High Court of Delhi.
Analysis: The pendency of investigation in Kerala made the High Court of Kerala the more suitable forum to consider the connected quash petitions. Transfer of proceedings to another State is warranted only where there is a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done. A bare assertion that the accused are influential was held insufficient. The Court also noted that a special team of State police officers was already investigating the matter and that the petitioner's difficulty in travelling could be addressed by legal aid representation.
Conclusion: The request to transfer the criminal miscellaneous petitions to the High Court of Delhi was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether investigation in FIR No. 260 of 2013 should be transferred from the State police to the CBI or an independent agency, or whether a special investigation team should be constituted.
Analysis: Direction to the CBI is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, such as lack of confidence in the local investigation or necessity to do complete justice. On the facts, the Court found no basis to displace the State police investigation, particularly since a special team had already been constituted and substantial investigation had progressed. At the same time, in view of the nature of the allegations, further investigation was directed to be entrusted to a special investigation team headed by a senior officer.
Conclusion: The prayer for CBI investigation was declined, but further investigation by a special investigation team headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police was directed.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings were finally resolved by declining transfer of the quash petitions and refusing CBI investigation, while ensuring continued investigation through a higher-level special police team.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer of criminal proceedings between States requires a demonstrable reasonable apprehension of injustice, and CBI investigation is an exceptional remedy to be ordered only sparingly when the facts justify such interference; otherwise, a monitored special police investigation may suffice.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
