SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @ SUJATASAHUversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

492                              (2016] 3 S.C.R. 492


"A               SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @ SUJATASAHU
                                          v.
                           STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
                   [Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 351 of2013]
 B                                  MAY 12,2016
        [T.S. THAKUR, CJI, R. BANUMATHI AND UDAY UMESH
                              LALIT, JJ.)
               Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.406 - Tram/er of s.482
        petition - Complaint filed by petitioner-wife against husband, in-
 c      laws and also against 5 naval officers and wife of one of them
        alleging physical and mental cruelty and wife swapping -
      . "Investigation pending with Harbour Police Station. Kochi, Kera/a
        - While rejecting anticipatory bail of husband, High Court of Kera/a
        directed thorough investigation by special team of state police
 D      officers - Naval officers filed petitions before High Court of Kera/a
        for quashing the proceedings - Petitioner filed instant transfer
        petitions seeking tram/er of said petitions on the ground of threat
        to her life and no means to pursue case at Kera/a and also filed
        writ petition seeking investigation by independent agency - Held:
        Since the investigation is pending in the State ofKera/a, it is desirable
 E
        that the petitions filed uls.482 are heard in the High Court of Kera/a,
        as the High Court of Kera/a will be in a better position to take note
        of further progress in the investigation and also consider the
        evidence recorded - Plea of the petitioner that the accused are
        naval officers and are influential is not sufficient to transfer the
 F      case - As regards the issue of transfer of investigation to
        independent agency, the extraordinary power of the constitutional
        courts in directing independent agency to conduct investigation in
        a case must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances,
        especially, when there is lack of confidence in the investigating
        agency or in the national interest and for doing complete justice in
 G
        the matter - The case in hand did not entail a direction for
        transferring the investigation from the state police/special team of
        State Police Officers to C.B.L - The facts and circumstances in which
        the offence is alleged to have been committed can be better
        investigated into by the state police - Howeve1~ it is deemed
 H      appropriate to direct the State of Kera/a to constitute a special team
                                       492
    SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @ SUJATASAHU v. STATE OF                           493
                   KERALA & ORS.

of police officers headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy      A
Inspector General of Police to investigate the matter - The Director
General of Police, Kera/a is directed to constitute a special
investigation team to take up further investigation in FIR.
       Disposing of the Writ petition and dismissing the Transfer
petitions, the Court                                                       B
      HELD: 1. When the investigation is pending in the State
of Kerala, it is desirable that the quash petitions filed under
Section 482, Cr.P.C. are heard in the High Court of Kerala, as
the High Court will be in a better position to take note of further
progress in the investigation and also consider the evidence               c
recorded. The Supreme Court will transfer a case from one State
to another State only if there is a reasonable apprehension on the
part of a party to a case that justice will not be done. The petitioner
has pleaded that "the atmosphere in Kerala is not conducive for
the case to progress and reach its judicious end". The petitioner
has only alleged that the accused are naval officers and are               D
influential. Mere apprehension that the accused are influential
may not be sufficient to transfer the case. As the petitioner has
expressed difficulties in travelling to Kerala and pursuing the
matter, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority is requested
to nominate a senior. counsel to represent the petitioner in the           E
matters before the High Court. [Para 6) [496-B-D]
       2. It is well settled that the extraordinary power of the
constitutional courts in directing C.B.I. to conduct investigation
in a case must be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances,
.especially, when there is lack of confidence in the fovestigating
agency or in the national interest and for doing complete justice~
in the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand, in the light of the principles, the case in hand does
 not entail a direction for transferring the investigation from the
state police/special team of State Police Officers to C.B.I. The
facts and circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have            G
 been committed can be better investigated into by the state police.·
However, having regard to the nature of allegations levelled by
 the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to direct the State ofKerala
 to constitute a special team of police officers headed by an officer
 not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police to               H
494            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 3 S.C.R.


A     investigate the matter. The Director General of Police, Kerala
      is directed to constitute a special investigation team headed by a
      police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of
      Police to take up further investigation in FIR. [Paras 9, 11, 12]
      [497-C-D; 498-G-H; 499-A-B]
B           K. Saravanan Karuppasamy & Anr. v. State of Tamil
            Nadu & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 406 : 2014 (7) SCR 1149;
            Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors. 2014 (11) SCC
            527 : 2014 (3) SCR 693 - referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
c           2014 (7) SCR 1149           referred to              Para 10
            2014 (3) SCR 693            referred .to             Para 10
            CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition
      (Criminal) No. 351 of2013.
D           Petition under Section 406 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
                                     WITH
            W. P. (Crl.) Nos. 164 of2013; and T. P. (Crl.) No. 384 of2013.
            Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

E           Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Atulesh Kumar,
      B. V. Bairam Das, S. N. Terdal, A. Raghunath, Ramesh Babu M. R.,
      Sanjay Kumar and Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocates for the
      Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 F          R BANUMATHI, J. I. Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 351 of
      2013, 384 of 2013 have been filed to transfer the petitions filed under
      Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being Criminal M.C. No.2551 of 2013 and
      Criminal M.C. No.2424of2013 pending before'the High Court of Kera la
      at Ernakulam to the High Court of Delhi.
             2. The petitioner got married to Lt. Ravi Kiran Kabdula on
G
      09.03.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner's husband Lt.
      Ravi Kiran Kabdula is a naval officer who was then posted at Kochi,
      Kerala. After marriage, the petitioner was residing with her husband at
      Kochi. As brought on record, the relationship between the petitioner and
      her husband was not very cordial. On 22.02.2013, the petitioner gave an
H     oral complaint that her husband was withholding her identity card, laptop,
    SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @ SUJATASAHU v. STATE OF                                 495
          KERALA & ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

mobile phone, original marriage certificate etc. The respondent was called       A
to the police station and directed to handover the belongings to the
petitioner. On 04.04.2013, the petitioner lodged a complaint against her
husband, her parents-in-law and sister-in-law alleging that they have
subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. The petitioner had also
levelled charge of sexual abuse against five naval officers and wife of
                                                                                 B
one of the naval officers. Based on her complaint, a case was registered
in FIR No.260 of20l 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 354, 506 (Part-l) IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioner's
husband Lt. Ravi Kiran Kabdula, her parents-in-law, sister-in-law and
the said five naval officers and wife of one ofthe1n. In the complaint
lodged subsequently, the petitioner had made allegations of wife-swapping        c
and also implicated new names. Investigation in the said case is pending
with Harbour Police Station, Kochi, Kerala.

        3. Petitioner's husband had moved an anticipatory bail application
before the High Court of Kerala, which was rejected vide order dated
l 0.06.2013. While declining anticipatory bail, the High Court has directed      D
that a thorough investigation must be conducted by the police. Pursuant
to the said order of the court, Deputy Commissioner of Police vi de order
dated 12.06.2013 constituted a special team headed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Koc hi.

       4. Navy officers shown as accused in FIR No.260 of20l3 and                E
private respondents in these transfer petitions namely, Capt. Ashok K
Aukta, Preena Aukta, Lt. Ishwar Chand Vidyasagar, Anand Balakrishnan
and Ajay Jaykrishnan have filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in
Criminal M.C. No. 2551 of20!3, and Criminal M.C. No.2424 of2013
before the High Court of Kerala, which the petitioner now seeks to
                                                                                 F
transfer. The petitioner claims transfer of the said two petitions contending
that she has no means or a male member in her family to support her to
pursue the case at Kerala. The petitioner also alleges that she faces
threat to her life on account of the private respondents. When these
transfer petitions came up for hearing, by an order dated 16.09.2013,
this Court granted interim stay of further proceedings in the said quash         G
petitions.
      5. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties at
considerable length and perused the impugned order and material on
record.
                                                                                 H
496             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A            6. As noticed earlier, investigation in FIR No. 260 of 2013
      registered at Harbour Police Station, Kochi, is pending in the State of
      Kerala and stated infra, we have directed further investigation in the
      said case by a special team of state police officers. When the investigation
      is pending in the State of Kerala, it is desirable that the quash petitions
      filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are heard in the High Court ofKerala,
B
      as the High Court will be in a better position to take note of further
      progress in the investigation and also consider the evidence recorded.
      The Supreme Court will transfer a case from one State to another State
      only ifthere is a reasonable apprehension on the paii of a party to a case
      that justice will not be done. The petitioner has pleaded that "the
c     atmosphere in Kera/a is not conducive for the case to progress and
      reach_ itsjudicious end". The petitioner has only alleged that the accused
      are naval officers and are influential. Mere apprehension that the accused
      are influential may not be sufficient to transfer the case. Since a special
      team of state police officers is constituted for further investigation, we
      are not inclined to order the transfer of the criminal miscellaneous petitions
D
      from the High Court of Kerala to the High Court of Delhi. As the
      petitioner has expressed difficulties in travelling Kera la and pursuing the
      matter, we request the Kerala State Legal Services Authority to nominate
      a senior counsel to represent the petitioner in the matters before the
      High Court.
E            7. In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 164 of2013, the petitioner has prayed
      for issuance of writ, directing investigation of FIR No. 260of2013, to be
      entrusted to an independent investigating agency or Central Bureau of
      Investigation (CBI) to ensure fair and impartial investigation. The petitioner
      has alleged lackadaisical approach by the state police to defeat
F     petitioner's case. In the writ petition on 20.09.2013, this Court passed an
      interim order staying of the investigation in connection with FIR No. 260
      of2013 and also proceedings before the Board of Enquiry, INS Vendurthy,
      Naval Base, Kochi.
             8. The State of Kerala has filed counter affidavit denying
      petitioner's allegation of inaction and lackadaisical approach by the state
G
      police. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is stated that after
      taking over the investigation by the special team on 14.06.2013, the
      petitioner was examined on 10.07.2013 and subjected to medical
      examination at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 11.07.2013. It is further
      stated that as many as seventy one witnesses, including the petitioner,
H     friends of the petitioner, doctors and other witnesses have been examined
     SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @ SUJATASAHU v. STATE OF                                  497
           KERALA & ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

and investigation is continuing. It is further stated that in the anticipatory    A
bail application filed by the husband in B.A. No. 2719 of2013, the High
Court of Kera la on I 0.06.2013 passed certain remarks about the
investigation of the case and directed a thorough investigation by police.
Pursuant to that, vi de order dated 12.06.2013, Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Kechi City had constituted a special team headed by Assistant
                                                                                   B
Commissioner of Police, Crime Detachment, Kechi City and investigation
of the case was taken over by them on 14.06.2013. Pursuant to the
order of the High Court, the state police did proceed with the further
investigation.
       9. It is well settled that the extraordinary power of the constitutional
courts in directing C.B.I. to conduct investigation in a case must be
                                                                                   c
exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances, especially, when there is
lack of confidence in the investigating agency or in the national interest
and for doing complete justice in the matter. A Constitution Bench of this
Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Co111111ittee for Protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (20 I 0) 3 SCC 571 held as                   D
under:
       "69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred
       is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its
       jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Co,nstitution, to CBI to
       investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been                       E
       committed within the territory of a State without the consent
       of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure
       of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of
       power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of
       civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts
       have not only the powerand jurisdiction but also an obi igation             F
       to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in
       general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular,
       zealously and vigilantly.
                       ..   ,

       70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to
       emphasise that despite wide powers'conferred by Articles                    G
       32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the
       Courts, must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations
       on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very
       plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great .
       caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a               H
498            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016] 3 S.C.R.



A           direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is
            concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down
            to decide whether or not such power should be exercised
            but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order
            is not to be passed as a matter ofroutine or merley because
            a party has levelled some allegations against the local pol ice.
B
            This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly,
            cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes
            necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in
            investigations or where the incident may have national iind
            international ramifications or where such an order niay be
c           necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the.
            fundamental rights. Otherwise CBl would be flooded with
            a large number of cases and with limited resources. may
            find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases
            and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with
            unsatisfactory investigations.
D
            71. In Minor Irrigation & Rural Engg. Services. U.P. v.
            Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521, this Court had
            said that an order directing an enqui1y by CBI should be
            passed only when the High Court, after considering the
            material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material
E           does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation
            by CBI or any other similaragency. We respectfully concur
            with these observations."
             I 0. Taking into account the law laid down by this Court in
      Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra), direction for
F     investigation by C.B.l. was declined by this Court in the case of K.
      Saravanan Karuppasamy & Am: v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2014)
      I 0 SCC 406 and Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors. 2014 ( 11)
      sec s21.
             11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand,
G     in the light of the above principles, we are of the view that the case in
      hand does not entail a direction for transferring the investigation from
      the state police/special team of State Police Officers to C.B.l. The facts
      and circumstances in which the offence is alleged to have been committed
      can be better investigated into by the state police. However, having regard
H     to the nature of allegations levelled by the petitioner, we deem it
     SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @ SUJATASAJ-IU v. STATE OF                                   499
           KERALA & ORS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to constitute a special team of            A
police officers headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy
Inspector General of Police to investigate the matter.
       12. In the result, the Writ Petition.(Criminal)No. 164 of2013 is
disposed of with. direction to the Director General of Police, Kera la to
constitute a special investigation team headed by a police officer not                B
below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police to take up further
investigation in FIR No.260of2013. The special investigation team shall
take up further investigation in accordance with law and complete the
investigation at an early date preferably within a period of three months
from today. We request the High Court to take up the Criminal M.C.
Nos.2551 of2013 and 2424of2013 after the special investigation team
                                                                                      c
completes the investigation.
      13. The Transfer Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 351 of2013 and 384
of2013 are dismissed. This order, however, shall not prevent the petitioner
from seeking transfer of Divorce Petition fiied by the husband if she is
so advised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on                D
the merits of the matter.


Devika Gujral          Writ petition disposed of and Transfer petitions dismissed.