SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN Vs STATE OF KERALA AND ORS
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,R. BANUMATHI,UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: Transfer Petition (crl.) 351 of 2013
Page 1
REPORTABALE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 351 OF 2013
SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN @
SUJATASAHU …Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ORS. …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.164 OF 2013
AND
TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 384 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
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.2424 of 2013 pending before the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam to the High Court of Delhi.
2. The petitioner got married to Lt. Ravi Kiran Kabdula on
09.03.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs. Petitioner's husband
1
Page 2
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 oral complaint that her
husband was withholding her identity card, laptop, mobile phone,
original marriage certificate etc. The respondent was called 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 one of the naval officers. Based on her
complaint, a case was registered in FIR No.260 of 2013 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354, 506 (Part-I) 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 of them. In the complaint lodged
subsequently, the petitioner had made allegations of wife-
swapping 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
2
Page 3
application before the High Court of Kerala, which was rejected
vide order dated 10.06.2013. While declining anticipatory bail,
the High Court has directed that a thorough investigation must be
conducted by the police. Pursuant to the said order of the court,
Deputy Commissioner of Police vide order dated 12.06.2013
constituted a special team headed by the Assistant Commissioner
of Police, Kochi.
4. Navy officers shown as accused in FIR No.260 of 2013
and 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 of 2013, and
Criminal M.C. No.2424 of 2013 before the High Court of Kerala,
which the petitioner now seeks to 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 petitions.
5. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties at
3
Page 4
considerable length and perused the impugned order and material
on record.
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 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 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 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 from the High Court of
Kerala to the High Court of Delhi. As the petitioner has expressed
4
Page 5
difficulties in travelling Kerala 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.
7. In Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 164 of 2013, the petitioner has
prayed for issuance of writ, directing investigation of FIR No. 260
of 2013, 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 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 of
2013 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 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, friends of the petitioner,
5
Page 6
doctors and other witnesses have been examined and
investigation is continuing. It is further stated that in the
anticipatory bail application filed by the husband in B.A. No. 2719
of 2013, the High Court of Kerala on 10.06.2013 passed certain
remarks about the investigation of the case and directed a
thorough investigation by police. Pursuant to that, vide order
dated 12.06.2013, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kochi City had
constituted a special team headed by Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Crime Detachment, Kochi 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 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. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights,
West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571 held as 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 Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither
6
Page 7
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 power and jurisdiction but also an obligation 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 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 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 of routine or merley because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. 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 and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI 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.
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 enquiry by CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.”
10. Taking into account the law laid down by this Court in
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra), direction for
investigation by C.B.I. was declined by this Court in the case of K.
Saravanan Karuppasamy & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
(2014) 10 SCC 406 and Sudipta Lenka v. State of Odisha & Ors.
2014 (11) SCC 527.
7
Page 8
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in
hand, 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.I. 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 to
the nature of allegations levelled by the petitioner, we deem it
appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to constitute a special
team of 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 of
2013 is disposed of with direction to the Director General of
Police, Kerala 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 No.260 of 2013. 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 of
2013 and 2424 of 2013 after the special investigation team
completes the investigation.
8
Page 9
13. The Transfer Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 351 of 2013 and
384 of 2013 are dismissed. This order, however, shall not prevent
the petitioner from seeking transfer of Divorce Petition filed by the
husband if she is so advised. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
….……...................CJI. (T.S. THAKUR)
……….......................J. (R. BANUMATHI)
………......................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT)
New Delhi, May 12, 2016.
9