Must the person against whom investigation is sought to be transferred to the CBI be impleaded and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard?

(Order of the Court was made by C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.) All the Writ Petitions have been filed primarily seeking transfer of investigation of an FIR in Cr.No.151 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Palani Adivaram Police Station, Palani, Dindigul District, which was subsequently transferred and re-registered as Cr.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CB-CID South, Dindigul, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

W.P.(MD)No.21418 of 2026 had been filed by K.S.N.Venugopalu Senapathi, who had initially described himself as ex- MLA, but later, that particular designation or description or probably even a title had been erased by a whitener by himself or by the Counsel, in the nature of a public interest litigation under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the same relief. The petitioner also claims that alternatively, the Court should appoint a retired Judge of this Court to monitor the investigation.

The next Writ Petition is W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4127 of 2026, which had been filed by R.Uma Maheshwari Pradheep, who at present is the Chairperson of Palani Municipality and also claims to be the devotee not of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple, Palani or the deity therein, but a devotee interested in protecting the properties of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamigal Maddam at Palani. She also claims that the aforementioned FIR registered, now under investigation by CB-CID, should be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation. This Writ Petition has not been filed in the nature of a public interest litigation, but rather in her individual and personal capacity.

The third Writ Petition in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4270 of 2026 filed again in the nature of a Mandamus. The petitioner therein is Annapoorani Sivakumar, who has described herself as a Trustee of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swami Temple at Palani. She also seeks transfer of the investigation of the aforementioned FIR to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation. This Writ Petition has again been filed not as a public interest litigation, but had been filed in her capacity as Trustee being directly responsible for the administration, protection and preservation of the properties endowed in favour of the said religious institution.

Even before traversing into the facts, as alleged by the petitioners in their respective affidavits or as asserted by the learned Senior Counsels/Counsels, the Court is wonderstruck by the fact that all the three petitioners are local residents of Palani. They held or are holding posts of responsibility. The first petitioner was a former MLA and incidentally also a former Trustee and whose family, as the learned Counsel stated with some pride, has the first honour to be bestowed on them as a matter of right to the exclusion of everybody else on Panguni Uthiram Festival. The second petitioner is the Chairperson of the local Municipality and the third petitioner is a Trustee of the Temple. The Court is wonderstruck because all three of them claim ignorance of the fact that a substantial large tract of property was the subject matter of a sale transaction and they were oblivious of any transaction relating to the same.

They can never claim that they are responsible local citizens interested in protecting the property if they claim ignorance of the transactions which took place not in their back yard but actually in their own front yard. They can never claim innocence of the transactions. They can never claim indulgence of this Court that they were never privity to any of the transactions relating to the sale or otherwise attempt to sale of the property. If they do so, they are not fit to hold the post, which today they hold or were holding before. Palani is a small town and information of purported sale of Temple property would spread like wildfire. Negotiations can never be done without the knowledge of local heavyweights and the petitioners claim to be local heavyweights.

However, keeping those musings aside, arguments have been advanced seeking to transfer the investigation, not on the basis that the Central Bureau of Investigation would be doing a better investigation or that it is a more favoured investigation agency, but rather appear to be slanted to prevent the CB-CID from investigating further into the matter.

It has been stated that three factors are relevant, namely, the incidents before the registration of the First Information Report; the incidents after the registration of the First Information Report; and why the Central Bureau of Investigation has suddenly become a favoured Investigating Agency. We make it clear that we have no qualms about the Central Bureau of Investigation. We have every respect for the officials therein, but there cannot be transfer of investigation to an agency merely because there exits an alternate investigating agency.

It had been contended that a sale deed, of which all the three petitioners claim ignorance, though surprisingly the vendor is a local person and the three petitioners can never claim that he is a stranger to them, had been presented for registration on 27.03.2026. The vendor apparently had no right to execute the sale deed. We would however not enter into a discussion on that fact, particularly because the rights of inter se are now the subject matter of two civil suits which are now pending before the competent civil Courts.

But even otherwise, we have to fall back to our observations in the earlier litigation, which came up before us in W.A.(MD)No.1010 of 2026, in which we pronounced orders on 15.07.2026, observing that the sale deed was a very strangely written document. So far as the consideration, which is a backbone of any transaction, was concerned, it proudly proclaimed that the consideration was paid by way of four separate negotiable instruments/cheques but did not disclose the bank on which the cheques had been drawn. The amounts of each cheque were stated. It is not known whether the account from which the cheques were drawn had sufficient balance or whether the cheques when presented would be honoured or whether the cheques were only a ruse to exhibit payments of consideration, when no consideration had actually flowed.

The second aspect in that sale deed which struck us was that the purchasers did not include an indemnity clause, if ever the sale deed came to be imputed on any ground. They had no recourse to fall back on after allegedly making a payment of nearly about Rs.2,00,00,000/- by way of negotiable instruments. The sale deed had been declared as void by us, but the purchasers can ever claim back the consideration which they purportedly paid to the vendor. These observations only reinforce our view that the entire transaction is sham and a fraud played by both vendor and the purchasers on each other and on everybody else.

It does indeed surprise us that three Writ Petitioners claim ignorance of the execution of the sale deed. This particular sale deed was executed on 27.03.2026 and was presented before the Sub Registrar Office on 01.04.2026. A refusal check slip was endorsed on the same day/01.04.2026. Again, we would not enter into any discussion on the same, since we had occasion to examine that particular refusal check slip which was also considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, when that refusal check slip was put to challenge in W.P.(MD)No.10239 of 2026 and an order was passed on 10.04.2026. The Writ Appeal, flowing from the order in that particular Writ Petition had been considered by us in W.A.(MD)No.1010 of 2026 and as aforestated, we had pronounced orders on 15.07.2026. We are informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not reversed our finding but had only placed a caveat that the declaration made by us that the document presented for registration and ultimately registered was void would be subject to the outcome of the civil suits which are pending.

The First Information Report came to be registered by Adivaram Police Station, Palani in Cr.No.151 of 2026. The investigation was transferred to the CB-CID on 14.07.2026 who took over the investigation on 15.07.2026 and re-registered the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2026. Investigation is now underway.

The learned Public Prosecutor was emphatic in his submission and asserted that CB-CID have not been in deep slumber as is projected. A status report has been presented before us by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch-CID, Madurai Range, the Investigating Officer, who, our opinion, has an onerous task to perform. He would have been trained in the nuances of investigating an offence. But now, he has to embark on a journey to examine the trace of title of a property, which venture somebody trained in civil law would happily wade into. At any rate, the investigating officer had treaded into this particular aspect of determining the trace of title of the said property. We hope that he had properly traced the title and examined the earlier judicial proceedings and any other aspect.

It is seen that he had examined the financial transaction which we stated as the consideration part in the sale dead. This sham attempt at projecting consideration having flowed had been emphasized by the learned Public Prosecutor. The Investigating Officer had also examined the electronic communications, the role of private persons and the conduct of officials of the Registration Department, the HR & CE Department and the Revenue Department. During the investigation, the team had also conducted search at 16 locations across six Districts through 16 Special Teams. They had seized 207 documents, 12 mobile phones, 3 laptops and 8 other electronic devices including one hard disk, one DVR and 6 CPUs. They had also discovered and recovered and seized a sum Rs.2,13,800/-. They have also seized audio records. Six mobile phones have been secured for investigation by issuing production memos.

We must again emphasize that though investigation had been handed over to the CB-CID on 14.07.2026, they could swing into action only on and from 15.07.2026, which date is hardly about 40 days prior to this date. As of now, they have examined 115 witnesses, which would show that they have been at the job everyday, on and from the date when they commenced the investigation. These witnesses include officials of the Registration Department, HR & CE Department, Revenue Department and also persons connected with the transactions and also independent witnesses. They have also seized 49 records from the Registration Department, 36 records from the Revenue Department, 23 banking records and 62 Call Detail Records /IPDR. All these collected materials will have to be analysed. We hold that it definitely should not be the object of any litigation or any Court to hamper or slow down investigation or put a cloud over any investigation process. No Court can state that the investigation is not going on the correct line, when the Investigating Officer had recorded statements of witnesses; had seized material objects; and now has the duty to analyse the materials seized and the statements recorded.

Apart from the records mentioned above, the investigation team have also seized 55 records relating to the property, its administration and previous proceedings. They have also seized CCTV footages from the Registration Offices and also from relevant locations. They have also collected Call Detail Records/IPDRs of various individuals whom they have categorised as suspects and also of all other connected persons. Now they are involved in analysing the communications between the persons involved. The banking records and financial transactions relating to the sale consideration, which evidently are not found in the sale deed in precise terms and the flow of money are also under investigation. We would only wish them well, as they had to start from zero without even knowing the bank from which the cheques had been drawn. The electronic materials which had been seized necessarily will have to be subjected to forensic examination. Their authenticity will have to be examined. It has to be further examined, whether they had been damaged or whether they would reveal any electronic finger print. We hold that investigation is proceeding on proper lines and should continue.

It is also seen that when they were able to get clearance from various Court proceedings relating to bail and anticipatory bail, they had taken into custody the key suspects. The Court proceedings relating to further bail applications are still pending, but the investigating agency is in the process of collecting evidence from the accused persons. The accused persons who had been taken into judicial custody have also been taken into Police custody between 05.08.2026 and 07.08.2026 for further investigation. They have also arrested the Sub Registrar, who had registered the document. They have also arrested a stranger individual whose name the learned Public Prosecutor, divulged as Jeyaprakash, who according to the learned Public Prosecutor, had a very decent avocation, called facilitator, and who facilitated or coordinated the registration process from the preparation of the sale deed till its registration and had also the temerity to exercise influence on the concerned officials. He had been taken into custody on 07.08.2026.

An Advocate, Anwardeen, whom the learned Public Prosecutor asserted was involved in ensuring that this particular property was sold and had also earlier attempted to sell it in the year 1998 and who had been involved quite directly in the present sale transaction was also arrested. However, subsequently, owing to whatever reason he had, he unfortunately expired. We would not go further into that particular aspect.

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Crl. (MD)No.4127 of 2026 pointed out this unfortunate death as a coincidence and stated that coincidences were galore and that another accused, the Sub Registrar, who actually registered the document/Justin Manikandan, complained of giddiness and chest pain and had to be admitted to Government Medical Hospital. However, thank the Lord, he has been discharged from hospital on 14.08.2026. He and Jeyaprakash had been taken into Police custody on 19.08.2026 and subsequently handed back to judicial custody. It is thus seen that there cannot be any quarrel over the fact that the investigation is progressing.

The learned Senior Counsel also forwarded a list of questions and wanted the Court to answer them. We unfortunately decline to do so, as we are neither the Investigating Officers in this particular case nor has investigation been entrusted to us. We are only examining whether the present Investigating Agency is discharging its duty.

One aspect which has to be examined is whether an order to transfer investigation could be passed without hearing the accused. This is a very important question which had not been addressed nor taken up for consideration.

On behalf of the petitioner in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4127 of 2026, three separate judgments had been cited, wherein according to them, it had been held that the accused need not be heard.

The first is a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 7 SCC 365 in the case of E.Sivakumar -vs.- Union of India. A careful examination of the facts would show that it related to a multi- State crime involving high officials of the State and Centre relating to illegal manufacture and sale of gutkha and paan masala containing tobacco and/or nicotine. It was an inter-State crime. The network of the accused was wide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to investigate such an inter-State crime, it would only be appropriate that it is entrusted to an organization which cuts across State boundaries and has longer arms to investigate offences beyond the jurisdiction of a particular State. That is a significant distinguishing factor. So far as that case was concerned, the accused are known. They have not been impleaded.

The second judgment is the one reported in (2014) 4 SCC 626 in the case of Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki -vs.- State of Gujarat. Examination of the facts of that particular case reveal that it had been filed by the father of a murdered RTI and social activist, who was trying to expose alleged illegal activities of politicians across the State. The relief sought was to transfer the investigation from the State Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Supreme Court held that it was a cry for justice made by a person whose son was brazenly murdered. In such a situation, holding that the accused would only be interested in somehow or the other employing delaying tactics and in ensuring that investigation does not even commence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken upon themselves to answer the cry for justice and to transfer the investigation. Again, the facts are distinguishable.

The third judgment which had been cited is the one reported in (2009) 6 SCC 65, in the case of Narender G. Goel -vs.- State of Maharashtra and another, which related to the murder of a Canadian citizen at Mumbai. The dead body was sent back to Canada, where a second autopsy was performed and genetic material was preserved. At the request of the husband of the deceased, the Chief Coroner at the Province of Ontario in Canada had written to the Commissioner of Police in Mumbai that they are ready to assist the Mumbai Police with the help of genetic material preserved by them. A petition was also filed in the High Court seeking a direction to the Mumbai Police to seek such assistance taking recourse to Section 166-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court declined. The matter then went to the Supreme Court. Section 166-A Code of Criminal Procedure is a very rarely used provision, which is a letter of request to the competent authority for investigation in a country or place outside India. Once the territorial borders have to be cut across by the Investigating Agency, it was held appropriate that the Central Investigating Agency takes over investigation. It was not concentrated on one particular State or as in this case to one particular District and within a town in that particular District to within a local area in that particular town. Again, the facts are distinguishable.

The judgment which is more relevant and for some reason had not been cited across the Bar is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 (State of Punjab -vs.- Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others). The facts are quite interesting, but let us not enter into a discussion on the facts. But among other aspects, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guidelines as to when CBI enquiry can be directed, which are as follows:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that while transferring investigation, the Court should record that a prima facie case had been made out against the accused and further that the Court cannot direct CBI to investigate whether a person had committed an offence as alleged or not. In the instant case, the three Writ Petitioners are still groping around in the dark and state that those who have been arrayed as accused could have committed the offence or there could also be somebody else who could also have committed the offence. They are not circumstances to compel transfer of investigation.

The Supreme Court had also stated in para 72, in what could be called the Divine Retreat Centre case (Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala [(2008) 3 SCC 542 ) referred supra, that a judicial order directing investigation could be directed only after giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

Again, in D.Venkatasubramanian, referred supra, and reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488, as referred in para 73 cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that an order passed behind the back of a party is a nullity and liable to be set aside on that score alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had reinforced the dictum that a person against whom an order is passed on the basis of a criminal petition should be impleaded as a respondent/necessary party.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held and in our opinion, quite forcefully, that the person against whom the investigation is sought to be transferred necessarily has to be impleaded as a party and must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The parameters under which the investigation could be transferred had again come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a later judgment in the case of Vishal Tiwari (Adani Group Investigation) -vs.- Union of India, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 115, wherein the power to transfer investigation to another agency or to an SIT/Special Investigating Team, which is also one of the relief sought by the petitioners herein, had been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme. It was held as follows:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court had even earlier examined in detail the case laws relating to transfer of investigation to CBI and one of them is another interesting case of an individual whose name everybody hears day in and day out, Arnab Ranjan Goswami -vs.- Union of India, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 12, wherein, after referring to a series of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "42.The transfer of an investigation to CBI is not a matter of routine. The precedents of this Court emphasise that this is an “extraordinary power” to be used “sparingly” and “in exceptional circumstances”. Speaking for a Constitution Bench in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571 D.K. Jain, J. observed:

The dictum laid down is that the accused should be heard or rather should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and on examining his version and only when coming to a conclusion that the case is so sensational that it should be investigated only by the CBI and that the Investigating Agency which is now investigating the case had failed to live up to its duty, could there be transfer of investigation. None of these grounds have been made out by any of the three petitioners, whose very locus has been seriously questioned by the learned Public Prosecutor and, who in our opinion, also cannot not maintain the petitions either in their individual capacity or as public interest litigation. They are merely busy bodies, who seek to poke their nose into an ongoing investigation and we sincerely hope not for nefarious reasons.

A series of judgments had been cited across the Bar, but we are confident that we had cited the relevant judgments on the issue.

One further fact which had been stated by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.Crl.(MD)No.4127 of 2026, is that as a Trustee, the petitioner is a victim. We do not agree with that proposition. As a Trustee, the petitioner had failed to protect the properties. As a Trustee, the petitioner had failed to even sense that there was a transaction in the winds. She should have exercised more diligence. She had failed to upload the trust kept in her. She cannot play the victim card, as she claims to be directly involved with the Trust and its properties.

We reject claims of innocence by the three Writ Petitioners. We reject claims of ignorance. We reject claims of bona fide intent. We refuse to grant any indulgence.

None of the three petitioners can proclaim that they are victims of any fraud. Investigation is still ongoing. We would not express any further opinion on the same.

In view of all these reasons, We would dismiss all the three Writ Petitions and direct the Investigating Agency to proceed further holding their head high and with confidence that they would come to the correct conclusion on completion of investigation.

In the result, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. [C.V.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]