Royden Harold Buthello & Anr. vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 Though there is no inflexible guideline or a straightjacket formula laid down, the power to transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power. It is to be used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where the Court on appreciating the facts and circumstance arrives at the conclusion that there is no other option of securing a fair trial without the intervention and investigation by the CBI or such other specialized investigating agency which has the expertise. In that background, there is no issue of public importance which requires to be unearthed by an investigation to be conducted by the CBI. Even from the facts noted and the allegations made against the police, though the Court is sensitive to the sentiment of the appellants herein, the contention ultimately is that the offence alleged against him to have been committed on 21.10.2020 could not have been committed by him inasmuch as he had been abducted from a different State and was already in the illegal detention of the police on 20.10.2020 itself. This essentially would be the defence in the criminal trial. The charges have been framed and the evidence is being tendered. Insofar as the allegation that the said persons namely ‘PB’, ‘S’, ‘S’ and ‘A’ had gone to Odisha and had illegally abducted him, from the very details furnished by the appellants themselves, it is noted that the High Court had through the order dated 17.03.2022 in a collateral proceeding directed that the five officers stated in the said order be called as witnesses for examination and cross-examination. [Paras 19, 20][162-F-H; 163-A-B]

1.2 In that view, even though it is contended that the CCTV footage would be relevant to establish the presence of the said four persons in the hotel at Odisha and the same has not been seized by the police, the fact remains that even from the same what is sought to be established is that the said four persons had abducted the appellant No.1. In the course of trial the five persons specified by the appellants would now be available to be crossexamined and any other orders in that regard can be sought in the pending proceedings. That apart, on the other aspects also since the trial is under progress, the appellant No.1 would be entitled to put forth his case when the statement under Section

313 of CrPC is recorded and also he would be entitled to tender evidence if necessary. The case of the appellant is clear as to the reason why he contends that the appellant No.1 cannot be held to have committed the offence as registered in FIR No.232/2020 based on which his name has also been included in an earlier FIR No.255/2020. These are matters which could be established through evidence in the trial before the Competent Court in the judicial proceedings wherein all these matters would be appreciated and a conclusion would be reached. In that regard, the appellants in any event would have the further remedy of the legal course which is available to them if they are dissatisfied. Further, insofar as the complaint said to have been lodged by the appellant No.2, from the affidavit as filed by the respondent No.6, the nature of investigation carried out by them has been stated. In that regard also the appellant No.2 would have the legal remedy in accordance with law. In addition, in the said process of the judicial proceedings if the appellants bring out the fact that the appellant No.1 who was not involved, had been framed up and a case was foisted, the appellants would still have the legal remedy to take action for malicious prosecution, loss of reputation, action against involved persons, compensation and for such other relief in that regard. Therefore, when the issue raised is only a matter of evidence to be considered in the judicial proceedings to arrive at a conclusion, this Court is not convinced that in a case of the present nature, a direction to the CBI to hold an investigation would be justified nor is it required at this juncture when the trial in the judicial proceedings has progressed unhindered. Hence to that extent, all contentions of the appellants are kept open. All contentions are left open to be urged before the trial court. No reason to interfere with orders impugned. [Paras 21, 22][163-CH; 164-A-C] State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC

571 : [2010] 2 SCR 979; Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 795 : [2014]

13 SCR 1362; Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of

India (2020) 14 SCC 12 : [2020] 8 SCR 222 – relied on.