A)ABSTRACT/HEADNOTE

The case Mandakini Diwan and Anr. v. The High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. revolves around the suspicious death of the wife of a senior judicial officer. Alleging bias and undue influence in the police investigation, the appellants—the deceased’s mother and brother—sought an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Supreme Court directed the CBI to conduct a fair and independent investigation to uncover the truth. The Court emphasized the need for judicial fairness and impartiality in investigating cases involving allegations against influential individuals.

Keywords: Investigation by independent agency, fair investigation, judicial officer, ante-mortem injuries, CBI probe.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Mandakini Diwan and Anr. v. The High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
06 September 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 86

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 226, Constitution of India
• Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
Not applicable

x) Case Related to:
Criminal Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case pertains to the mysterious death of Ranjana Diwan, whose husband, a senior judicial officer, was alleged to have influenced the investigation process. Despite numerous complaints, no First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and the case was dismissed by the High Court, directing the appellants to seek statutory remedies. Dissatisfied, the appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking a CBI probe to ensure impartiality.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Marital Background:
   Ranjana Diwan, deceased, married Manvendra Singh (respondent no. 7) in 2014. Singh, a senior judicial officer, had known the deceased since 2010.

2. Death and Initial Report:
   On May 12, 2016, the deceased was reported to have committed suicide. The post-mortem revealed ante-mortem injuries inconsistent with a simple suicide claim.

3. Apprehension of Bias:
   The appellants alleged that Singh influenced the investigation, given his judicial standing. The post-mortem findings were disputed, indicating a lack of fair inquiry.

4. Legal Proceedings:
   The appellants’ pleas for an independent investigation were dismissed by the High Court after seven years of pendency, citing available statutory remedies under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the appellants’ claim of bias in the investigation justified a CBI probe under Article 226 of the Constitution?
ii) Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition, citing alternative remedies under CrPC Section 156(3)?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Inadequate Investigation:
   The appellants contended that no FIR had been registered despite substantial evidence indicating a suspicious death, including six ante-mortem injuries.

2. Influence of Respondent:
   Singh, being a senior judicial officer, allegedly exerted undue influence over the police machinery, obstructing an impartial investigation.

3. Necessity of CBI Inquiry:
   Given the respondents’ position of influence, a CBI probe was imperative to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.

4. Alternative Remedies Not Feasible:
   The appellants argued that remedies under Section 156(3) CrPC would not suffice as the magistrate’s court is subordinate to Singh.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Fair Investigation Conducted:
   The respondents claimed a thorough investigation had been carried out, involving over 50 witnesses.

2. Allegations of Bias Unfounded:
   The respondents argued the appellants’ allegations of bias were baseless and aimed at maligning Singh’s reputation.

3. Adequate Remedies Available:
   The respondents emphasized that the appellants had statutory remedies under Section 156(3) CrPC, which they failed to pursue.

H) JUDGMENT

a) Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court held that the apprehension of bias warranted an independent investigation by the CBI. The Court underscored the constitutional obligation to ensure fair investigation and protect fundamental rights.

b) Obiter Dicta:

The Court remarked on the critical role of constitutional courts in addressing public grievances, particularly where allegations of bias exist against influential individuals.

c) Guidelines:

1. The CBI must conduct a fair and independent investigation.
2. The investigation must consider all evidence and submit a report expeditiously.
3. If required, the CBI must register an FIR and proceed according to law.
4. Cooperation from the State of Chhattisgarh is mandatory.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case reaffirms the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure justice where bias or undue influence is alleged. The decision strengthens public confidence in legal institutions, particularly in cases involving powerful individuals.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred:

1. Awungshi Chirmayo v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2022) SCC Online SC 1452.
2. State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571.
3. Bharati Tamang v. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 578.
4. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158.

b) Important Statutes Referred:

1. Article 226, Constitution of India
2. Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973