REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 33 OF 2011

Disha ….Petitioner

Versus

State of Gujarat & Ors. ….Respondents  

J U D G M  E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN,  J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for seeking the directions that  

investigations  into the  financial  transactions  of  the petitioner’s  late  

husband Shri Deven Malviya and his associates through various firms,  

and the mysterious cause of her husband’s death in Hotel Marriott,  

Senapati  Bapat  Road,  Pune  be  transferred  to  Central  Bureau  of  

Investigation (hereinafter called CBI) under Section 173 of the Code  

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.);  and

further to hand over all complaints made by various investors against  

the firms owned by her family members to the CBI for investigation.  

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are as under:

A. Petitioner  indulged  herself  in  commercial/business  activities  

alongwith her  husband late   Deven Malviya,   particularly  in  share  

broking in the name and style of  M/s Disha Credit  and Marketing  

Services alongwith one another partner Mr. Ajay Gandeja in Nagpur  

from 1998 to 2004.  

B. Late Mr. Deven Malviya, for certain reasons, shifted from Nagpur  

to Pune and started his own share broking business in the year 2007.  

Petitioner’s husband and his maternal  uncle namely,  Shri Narendra  

Dhruv  and his sons started share broking business in Rajkot in the  

name of M/s Vision Equities and Commodities  and subsequently at  

Ahmedabad also.  In 2008, another firm was constituted in the name  

of Vibrant Equities and Commodities, of which the petitioner was the  

proprietor.  

C. During  that  period,  i.e.,  between  2008  and  2010,  petitioner’s  

husband, his maternal uncle  and his sons appointed a large number of  

agents/franchises for their firms all over Gujarat and the said agents  

collected  a  huge  amount  from  large  number  of  persons/investors  

2

giving them assurance that their money would be multiplied within a  

short span of time.  

D. On  28.12.2010,  Late  Deven  Malviya,  petitioner’s  husband  

checked in Hotel Marriott at Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune  in a  Room  

on 20th floor.  He jumped from 22nd floor of Hotel Marriott at 11.30  

a.m. on 30.12.2010 and died spontaneously.  The matter of death of  

petitioner’s  husband  is  being  investigated  by  Chhatushingi  Police  

Station, Pune.  

E. An  FIR  No.  CR  No.  1-18/2011  was  lodged  on  12.1.2011  at  

Gandhigram Police  Station  in  Rajkot  under  Sections  406,  420 and  

120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC) by the  

complainant with the allegations that the partners/ agents/franchises of  

the firm owned by the petitioner herself had given fake promises to  

the complainant and other investors that they would get Rs.1,40,000/-  

in return of their investment of Rs.1,00,000/- within a short stipulated  

period.  But the investors could not get  any amount.   The accused  

persons  in  conspiracy  with  each  other  made  a  fraudulent  scheme  

duping the innocent investors.  

F. The  police  filed  a  charge  sheet  against  13  accused  persons  

including the petitioner  after examining 23 witnesses.  Seven accused  

have already been arrested and further investigation is in progress for  

3

obtaining the Forensic Science Laboratory report in connection with  

the seized Muddamaal  (Crime property, e.g. Computer,  CPU, Hard  

disk etc.).  According to investigation held, so far, it is evident that the  

investors have been duped by petitioner’s Firms for a sum of Rs.60  

crores.  

3. The grounds on which the transfer is sought are as follows:  

(1) Petitioner  will  face  acute  harassment  owing  to  the  number  of  

investors.

(2) Petitioner  likely  to  be  victimised,  and  all  associates,  agents,  

partners would suppress material information fastening all charges on  

her to save themselves.

(3) Number  of  scattered  complaints  would  lead  to  uncoordinated  

investigation and not uncovering the truth.

(4) Death in most  suspicious circumstances since the alleged scam  

involves  politicians,  bureaucrats  and  influential  business  men  who  

could have abetted the suicide since they invested crores of rupees.

(5) Petitioner is interested in finding out the truth.

(6) Interference needed for putting the investigations on proper track  

relating to  the death of  the husband/deceased and for  enquiry  into  

scam by CBI.

(7) To avoid botch up in investigation due to prevailing corruption.

4. Heard  Shri  A.K.  Sanghi,  learned  Senior  counsel  for  the  

petitioner,  Shri H.P. Rawal, learned ASG for CBI, Shri N. Nanavati,  

4

learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  Gujarat  and  Shri  Sanjay  Kharde,  

learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra.

So  far  as  the  case  of  suicide  of  petitioner’s  husband  is  

concerned, the respondent No.2, Maharashtra police, is investigating  

the matter.  During the investigation, three suicidal notes in the hand-

writing of the deceased have been recovered.   Father of the deceased  

identified  the  hand-writing  of  Deven  Malviya,  the  deceased  and  

investigation is going on. However, according to the investigation so  

far conducted it appears to be a plain and simple case of suicide, may  

be because of pressure of investors in his commercial activities.   

He was facing large number of demands from investors who  

could  not  even  get  back  the  principal  amount,   what  to  talk  of  

multiplied  amount  or  compounded  interest  etc.  as  assured by their  

agents and collectors/franchises.   Therefore, he could not stand the  

pressure of his commitments, and as the angry investors were reported  

to  have  forcibly  demanded  their  money  back  and  had  seized  the  

documents of sale of house and office properties from his maternal  

uncle at Rajkot.

5. The petitioner did not render any assistance whatsoever to the  

Maharashtra Police in investigation of the said case, nor has she raised  

5

any grievance before this court that the investigation conducted by the  

Maharashtra Police is not fair, though she is fully aware that the firms  

owned  by  the  petitioner  and  her  family  members/relatives  had  

collected huge amount from investors which had not been returned to  

them as promised and they had been pressing hard for recovery of  

their amount. In such circumstances, naturally a person will be under  

the pressure and may also commit suicide. However, in view of the  

fact  that  the  matter  is  still  being  investigated  by  the  Maharashtra  

Police, we do not think it proper to make any comment on it.  

6. So far  as  the Gujarat  Police  is  concerned,  according to  the  

counter affidavit filed by the State of Gujarat, only one FIR has been  

lodged,  wherein  the  investigation  has  been  concluded  and  charge  

sheet has been filed against 13 accused persons including petitioner.

7. In this background, the case is required to be examined as to  

whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, where in case of  

cheating, a charge sheet has been filed, the matter can, and is required  

to be transferred for investigation/further investigation to the CBI.  

8. In Kashmeri  Devi v.  Delhi Admn. & Anr.,  AIR 1988 SC  

1323, this Court held that the magistrate can direct CBI to investigate  

6

a case,  after  charge sheet  has been filed,  by exercising his  powers  

under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. It was stated accordingly:-  

“Since according to the respondents charge-sheet   has already been submitted to the Magistrate we   direct  the  trial  court  before  whom  the  charge- sheet  has been submitted to exercise  his  powers   under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct the Central   Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough   investigation  of  the  case.  On  issue  of  such   direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will   investigate  the  case  in  an  independent  and  objective  manner  and  it  will  further  submit   additional charge-sheet, if any, in accordance with   law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”

9. In Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC  

397, this Court however, held that the power of directing investigation  

by CBI after chargesheet was filed, should not ordinarily be used, but  

only when necessary.  The investigation having been completed by  

the police and charge-sheet submitted to the court, it is not for this  

Court, ordinarily, to reopen the investigation specially by entrusting  

the same to a specialised agency like CBI.

Same  view  has  been  reiterated  by  this  Court  in  Punjab  &  

Haryana High Court Bar Assn., Chandigarh through its Secretary  

v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1994 SC 1023.  

7

10. In R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 38, this  

Court examined the case where the accusations were directed against  

the local police personnel.  The Court held that it would be desirable  

to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI so  

that  all  concerned including the relatives of  the deceased may feel  

assured that an independent agency was looking into the matter and  

that  would  lend  the  final  outcome  of  the  investigation  credibility.  

However faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation,  

the  same  would  lack  credibility  since  the  allegations  were  against  

them.  

11. This Court refused to direct the investigation by the CBI, after  

the charge sheet  was  filed  in  Vineet  Narain & Ors.  v.  Union of  

India & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 3386.  

12. In case of persons against whom a prima facie case is made  

out and a charge-sheet is filed in the competent court, it is that court  

which will then deal with that case on merits in accordance with law.  

(See : Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi, (1998) 8 SCC 661).

13. Relying  on  the  observations  in  Union  of  India  v.  Sushil  

Kumar  Modi  (supra),  this  Court  in  Rajiv  Ranjan Singh `Lalan'  

(VIII) v. Union of India,(2006) 6 SCC 613, reiterated that the Court  

8

does not have the power to direct the CBI to investigate a matter after  

the chargesheet was filed.  

14. The above three cases i.e. of  Vineet Narain, Sushil Kumar  

Modi  and  Rajiv  Rajan  Singh were  differentiated  in  a  recent  

judgment by this Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat  

& Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3175, wherein this Court held:-  

“Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an   appropriate  case  when  the  court  feels  that  the   investigation by the police authorities is not in the   proper  direction  and  in  order  to  do  complete   justice in the case and as the high police officials   are involved in the said crime, it was always open   to the court to hand over the investigation to the   independent agency like CBI.”

15. In Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan & Ors., (2011) 3  

SCC 758,   this  Court  dealt  with  a  case  in  which  Kishwar  Jahan,  

mother  of  the  deceased  Rizwanur  Rahman  approached   the  High  

Court to transfer the investigation of his death from local police  to  

CBI expressing her apprehension that State police would not conduct  

investigation  fairly  because   her  son  had  contracted  inter-religion  

marriage  with  the  daughter  of  a  very  affluent  and  influential  

businessman,  who  had  very  close  relationship  with  high  police  

officials.  She  produced  sufficient  material  to  establish  the  nexus  

9

between  the  main  accused  and  top  police  officials.  This  court  

considering  the  reasonable  apprehension  in  her  mind  about  fair  

investigation by the State CID, directed CBI to investigate the cause  

of death of Rizwanur Rahman.  

(See also: and Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat,  JT 2011 (4) SC  279).

16. Thus, it is evident that this Court has transferred the matter to  

CBI or any other special agency only when the Court was  satisfied  

that the accused had been very powerful  and influential person or  

State  authorities  like  high  police  officials  were  involved  and  the  

investigation had not proceeded with in proper direction or it had been  

biased.  In such a case, in order to do complete justice and having  

belief  that  it  would  lend  the  final  outcome  of  the  investigation  

credibility, such directions have been issued.

17. The case requires to be examined in the light of the aforesaid  

settled legal proposition.  

 18. Shri  A.K.  Sanghi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

petitioner has tried to convince the court placing reliance on various  

newspaper cuttings filed as Annexures submitting that it could be a  

10

big scam of thousand of crores rupees, but we are not impressed by  

such  submissions  as  the  police  could  find  out  that  the  total  

investments by investors had been only about Rs.60 crores.   

19. In the instant  case,  the petitioner herself  is  the accused.   A  

huge  amount  of  Rs.60  crores  has  been  collected  from  innocent  

persons giving them false assurances that their amount would have a  

high premium.  It has not been alleged in the petition that any of the  

investor  is  very  powerful  or  capable  to  manage  the  investigation  

against the petitioner or that the case of suicide of her husband is not  

properly  investigated.   It  is  no  body’s  case  that  the  police  has  

unnecessarily  harassed the petitioner;  rather,  the record of the case  

reveals  that  it  is  only  after  completing  the  investigation,  that  the  

charge sheet has been filed against 13 persons including the petitioner.  

No  allegation  of  mala  fide  or  bias  has  been  alleged  against  any  

investigating authority nor had it been pleaded that charge sheet had  

been  filed  against  the  petitioner  without  investigating  the  case  or  

having  any  vindictive  attitude  towards  the  petitioner.   In  fact,  the  

petition is based purely on mere apprehension by the petitioner.  None  

of the grounds taken  by the petitioner for transfer is tenable.   

11

20. In such a fact-situation, we do not see any cogent reason to  

interfere  in  the matter.  The petition lacks merit  and is  accordingly  

dismissed.   

However,  in  case  any  action  is  taken  by  the  investigating  

agency  against  the  petitioner,  she  would  be  at  liberty  to  seek  the  

appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum and any observation  

made herein, shall not be treated adverse to her.  

                                                          ……………………….........J.                                                             (P. SATHASIVAM)       

                                                           ……………………….........J.                                                             (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, July  20, 2011

12