Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking to transfer the investigation into Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu's death to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner, Naveen Babu's wife, alleged bias in the ongoing investigation led by the State Investigation Team (SIT), citing the political influence of the accused.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice Kauser Edappagath, delivered the verdict, observing that “The mere reason that the accused has political allegiance to the ruling political party is not a ground to transfer the investigation of the crime from the State Investigating Agency to the CBI.”

ADM Naveen Babu was found dead by hanging in his official quarters in Kannur on October 15, 2024. A case was initially registered under Section 194 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) pertaining to ‘Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.’. However, the First Information Report (FIR) was later modified to include Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), dealing with abetment of suicide. The FIR implicated former Kannur District Panchayat President and a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), P.P. Divya, as the sole accused. It was found that Divya had publicly humiliated Naveen Babu during his farewell function, accusing him of corruption and threatening exposure. The speech reportedly led to his humiliation, exacerbated by the circulation of event footage on social media.

Following ADM Naveen Babu's death, P.P. Divya, though charged with abetting his suicide, was granted bail on November 8, 2024. Subsequently, Babu’s widow filed a petition accusing the CPI(M)-led State of shielding Divya from prosecution due to her political influence. The petition alleged investigative lapses, including inconsistencies between the inquest and autopsy reports, intimidation of witnesses, and failure to secure critical evidence like CCTV footage and call records. It was further contended that Divya continued to wield political clout despite her resignation, citing her appointment as a permanent member of the District Panchayat Finance Standing Committee in December 2024.

Upon reviewing the facts and the petitioner’s plea, the court emphasised that “a prayer for a direction of investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency should not be granted on mere asking or as a matter of routine.”

Citing precedents set forth by the Supreme Court in cases including K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police (2013), and Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022), the court reiterated that no person can insist that the offence be investigated by a specific agency since the plea can only be that the offence be investigated properly. The court emphasised that the power to transfer an investigation should only be exercised when there is compelling justification indicating a probable failure of justice if the transfer is not ordered and that “the petitioner must place on record strong evidence indicating that the investigating agency has portrayed inadequacy in the investigation or prima facie appears to be biased.”

Elaborating on the petitioner’s contentions about deficiencies in both the initial and ongoing investigations, the court asserted: “It appears from the case diary that the investigation is proceeding in the right direction adhering to all the best practices in the criminal investigation. The petitioner could not point out any material flaw in the investigation conducted by the present investigation team warranting investigation by the CBI.”

The court further observed: “the transfer of investigation from the State Investigating Agency to the CBI should be directed by the superior courts sparingly, only in exceptional cases where the investigation already conducted is found to be so unfair, tainted, malafide and in violation of the settled principles of investigative canons. Certainly, this is not such a case.”

In conclusion, while dismissing the request for a CBI investigation, the court emphasised the victim's fundamental rights to a fair investigation under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution. It directed the SIT to expeditiously and transparently address all concerns raised by the petitioner, including exploring the possibility of homicidal hanging, and to update both the petitioner and the supervising DIG about the investigation's progress. The SIT was also instructed to file the final report only after approval from the DIG to ensure thorough oversight.

 

Cause Title: Manjusha K. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. [WP(Crl.) 1297 of 2024]