LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ramachandraiah-anr-vs-m-manjula-ors-20250423/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Ramachandraiah & Anr. vs M. Manjula & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
23 April 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 2179 of 2025
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Dipankar Datta, Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1522 : 2025 INSC 556
Acts & Sections
IPC CrPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1522 : 2025 INSC 556
Issue for consideration
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in directing for investigation by the CBI.
Headnote

Investigation – CBI investigation – Direction by High Court – Deceased was a close confidant of one DKA, a Member of Parliament – He owned many immovable properties – After the death of DKA, tiff between the deceased and the children of DKA (one of the appellants) as regards those properties – Deceased died under mysterious circumstances – FIR registered inter alia against appellants for murder of the deceased – SIT constituted – Magistrate not satisfied with the investigation conducted by SIT, directed further investigation by Police – Challenged by wife and son of the deceased, High Court directed CBI to conduct further investigation – Correctness: Held: High Court rightly directed the investigation by CBI – Once an FIR is registered and investigation has taken place, direction for an investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused – The matter for entrusting investigation to a particular agency is basically at the discretion of the Court – On facts, the truth surrounding the death of the deceased needs to be settled after a complete and fair investigation by CBI – Deceased was closely associated with DKA, an MP and Chairman of Temple Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple (Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam) – Deceased was a successful realtor and had huge assets in and around Bangalore – His mysterious death was preceded by execution of two different Wills, one in favour of his wife-respondent no.1 and the other in favour of respondent No.12 which was registered after his controversial death – There are also civil proceedings relating to mutation and declaration of title as well as the allegations concerning forgery of stamp papers – The Magistrate while directing further investigation and the High Court, under the impugned order, highlighted the glaring defects in the investigation – Order of the High Court affirmed. [Paras 16, 18] Constitutional Courts – Power to direct CBI investigation – To be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances: Held: High Court or the Supreme Court being Constitutional Court is vested with extra-ordinary power to direct CBI investigation depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case – The Constitutional Courts are expectantly and reverently entrusted with the duty to serve justice being a sovereign and premiere constitutional institution – Power to direct for CBI investigation is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, but, when the facts so demand, it is extremely necessary to exercise the said power to provide credibility and instil confidence in order to do complete justice and for enforcing the fundamental rights. [Para 11]

Keywords: CBI investigation · Direction by High Court for CBI investigation · Prospective suspect or accused · Writ of mandamus · Further investigation · Mysterious death · D.K. Adikeshavalu, Member of Parliament · Close aid · Fabricated Will · Posthumously registered · Private Complaint · Special Investigation Team (SIT) Report · Investigation lopsided · Constitutional Courts · Extra-ordinary power to direct CBI investigation · Prospective Accused · Right to defend at preliminary stage

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals would call in question, the impugned Judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 7784 of 2022 whereby the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed in-part and the orders of Magistrate dated 21.02.2022 and 10.03.2022 passed in P.C.R.No. 51691 of 2020 were set aside only insofar as they directed further investigation to be conducted by HAL Police Station. Furthermore, a writ of mandamus was issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi/responde
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →