Supreme Court Sets Aside Telangana High Court Order on CBI Investigation: Suneetha Narreddy vs. Y S Avinash Reddy & Anr (2023) INSC 345 (24 April 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 345

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J

Can a High Court dictate how a central investigating agency conducts its investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, setting aside an order of the High Court for the State of Telangana which had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct its interrogation of a suspect in a specific manner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s directions were unwarranted and would impede the investigation process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice of India, Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of YS Vivekananda Reddy, the brother of the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, who was found dead at his residence in Pulivendula, Kadapa District, on the night of March 14/15, 2019. A complaint was filed by MV Krishna Reddy on March 15, 2019, at the Pulivendula Urban Police Station, leading to the registration of Crime No. 84/2019. The investigation was initially handled by a Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted by the Director General of Police, which was later reconstituted twice. The appellant, Suneetha Narreddy, the daughter of the deceased, filed a petition in the High Court seeking to transfer the investigation to the CBI. The High Court ordered the CBI to conduct further investigation on March 11, 2020. The CBI registered the case as RC-04(S)/2020/SC-III/ND on July 9, 2020.

On October 21, 2021, the CBI filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pulivendula, naming four individuals for offences under Section 302 (murder) and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The charge sheet also named the first respondent, YS Avinash Reddy, among others, as suspects in the conspiracy to commit the murder. D. Siva Shankar Reddy was arrested on November 17, 2021, and a supplementary charge sheet was filed on January 31, 2022, naming him as A5. The appellant and her mother, concerned about witness safety and alleged false complaints against CBI officers, sought the transfer of the trial to Hyderabad or Delhi and a time-bound investigation. The Supreme Court ordered the transfer of the trial to Hyderabad on November 29, 2022.

The CBI issued summons to the first respondent, YS Avinash Reddy, on multiple occasions in January, February and March 2023. The first respondent then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which directed the CBI to produce all records and not take any coercive action against him, while ordering him to appear before the Investigating Officer on March 14, 2023. The High Court then directed that the first respondent be examined within the sight of his advocate. Subsequently, the CBI arrested Gajjala Uday Kumar Reddy on April 14, 2023, and the father of the first respondent on April 15, 2023. The CBI then issued a notice to the first respondent to appear on April 17, 2023. The first respondent then moved an application for anticipatory bail, leading to the High Court’s order which is the subject of the present appeal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court was hearing an application for anticipatory bail by the first respondent, YS Avinash Reddy. During this, the High Court issued an interim order directing that the first respondent should attend the CBI office between April 19 and 25, 2023, and that the questioning should be in printed/written form, with a questionnaire provided to the first respondent. The High Court also directed that the first respondent should not be arrested until April 25, 2023. The Supreme Court noted that this order was passed while the application for anticipatory bail was still pending before the High Court. The High Court had observed that there were multiple motives for the murder and that the motive attributed to the first respondent was based on the confession of A4, who stated that big persons were involved and named the first respondent along with A7 and two others.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which relates to the grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court’s order was passed in the context of an application for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court also considered Section 160 of the CrPC, which relates to the power of a police officer to require the attendance of witnesses. The court also mentions Section 161 of the CrPC, which deals with the examination of witnesses by police. The Supreme Court also noted the provisions of Section 173(8) of CrPC, which deals with further investigation by the police.

The relevant sections are:

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail to a person who apprehends arrest.
• Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers a police officer to require the attendance of any person who appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section empowers a police officer to examine witnesses during the course of investigation.
• Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the procedure for further investigation by the police.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Arguments

The appellant, Suneetha Narreddy, argued that the High Court’s order was extraordinary and would stultify the investigation. The appellant contended that there was no basis for the High Court to direct that the questioning of the first respondent be in printed or written form, or that a questionnaire be provided. The appellant relied on the affidavit filed by the CBI, which indicated that the first respondent was a suspect in the conspiracy to commit the murder and the destruction of evidence.

The first respondent, YS Avinash Reddy, argued that he was cooperating with the investigation and that the High Court’s order was necessary to protect his rights. He contended that the CBI was biased and that there were multiple motives for the murder. The first respondent also argued that there was no new evidence against him since 2021.

The CBI argued that the High Court’s order was unwarranted and would impede the investigation. The CBI submitted that the first respondent was a suspect in the conspiracy and that the investigation was still ongoing. The CBI also pointed out that the High Court’s order would create a precedent that would be detrimental to the investigation of criminal cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting an ad interim stay of arrest.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in directing that the examination before the CBI in the course of the investigation shall be “in printed/written form” during the course of which a questionnaire may also be handed over to the first respondent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not specifically cite any case laws or books in this judgment. The court relied on the factual matrix of the case and the legal provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court considered the affidavit filed by the CBI in the writ proceedings and the remand proceedings before the Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Hyderabad.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was premature and misapplied itself. The court noted that the High Court had made observations about the merits of the case at an interim stage, which was not appropriate. The court also held that the High Court’s directions regarding the manner of questioning were unwarranted and would interfere with the investigation process. The Supreme Court emphasized that the CBI should be allowed to conduct its investigation without interference from the High Court. The court also observed that the High Court should not have directed the CBI to conduct the investigation in a particular manner.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated 18 April 2023. The court clarified that its observations would not come in the way of the High Court evaluating the application for anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court also extended the time for the completion of the investigation by the CBI until 30 June 2023.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that the investigation process is not hampered by unwarranted judicial intervention. The court emphasized the importance of allowing investigating agencies to carry out their duties without interference, especially at the preliminary stages of an investigation. The court was also concerned that the High Court’s order would set a bad precedent, which could be detrimental to the investigation of criminal cases in the future. The court also took into consideration the CBI’s affidavit, which indicated that the first respondent was a suspect in the conspiracy to commit the murder.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the investigation of a crime is the domain of the investigating agency, and the courts should not interfere with the process unless there is a clear abuse of power. The court emphasized that the High Court’s directions were not supported by any legal provision and would create a situation where the investigating agency would be unable to carry out its duties effectively. The court also noted that the High Court’s directions were not in the interest of justice.

The Supreme Court stated, “An order of this nature would stultify the investigation.” The court further observed, “There is absolutely no warrant for the High Court to direct that the investigation of a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracy should be in the printed or written form.” The court also noted, “Such orders of the High Court are liable to gravely prejudice the course of investigation.”

The Supreme Court did not have a minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, and both judges were in agreement with the decision.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts should not interfere with the investigation process of investigating agencies unless there is a clear abuse of power.
• Investigating agencies should be allowed to carry out their duties without interference, especially at the preliminary stages of an investigation.
• Courts should not dictate the manner in which an investigation is conducted.
• The order of the High Court was set aside as it was found to be unwarranted and would impede the investigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court extended the time for the completion of the investigation by the CBI until 30 June 2023.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not interfere with the investigation process of investigating agencies by dictating the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted. This judgment reinforces the principle that the investigation of a crime is the domain of the investigating agency, and the courts should not interfere with the process unless there is a clear abuse of power. This judgment does not change any previous positions of law, but it clarifies the extent to which the High Courts can intervene in the investigation process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s order which had directed the CBI to conduct its investigation in a specific manner. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s directions were unwarranted and would impede the investigation process. The court emphasized that the investigating agencies should be allowed to carry out their duties without interference from the courts, especially at the preliminary stages of an investigation. The Supreme Court extended the time for the completion of the investigation by the CBI until 30 June 2023.

Category:

• Criminal Law
  • Anticipatory Bail
  • Investigation
  • Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Suneetha Narreddy vs. Y S Avinash Reddy case?
A: The main issue was whether the High Court could dictate the manner in which the CBI conducts its investigation, specifically by directing that questioning be in printed/written form and by providing a questionnaire to the suspect.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding that it was unwarranted and would impede the investigation process. The court emphasized that investigating agencies should be allowed to carry out their duties without interference from the courts.

Q: Can a High Court direct an investigating agency to conduct its investigation in a particular manner?
A: No, according to this judgment, a High Court should not interfere with the investigation process of investigating agencies by dictating the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted.

Q: What is anticipatory bail?
A: Anticipatory bail is a direction to release a person on bail, issued before the person is arrested. It is granted to a person who apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that the investigation of a crime is the domain of the investigating agency, and the courts should not interfere with the process unless there is a clear abuse of power. It ensures that investigating agencies can carry out their duties effectively.