The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Calcutta High Court Division Bench order, which directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a fresh probe into the death of Rizwanur Rahman, a computer graphics teacher, treating it as a case of murder.
A Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan asked the CBI to proceed with the case as suicide as directed by a single judge.
Rizwanur was found dead near the rail track at Dum Dum in Kolkata on September 21, 2007, a month after his marriage to Priyanka, daughter of industrialist Ashok Todi, .
While the single judge directed the CBI to probe the case as one of unnatural death, the Division Bench on May 18, 2010 asked the agency to conduct the investigation afresh treating it as a case of murder.
Allowing the appeals by both the CBI and Mr. Todi challenging the Division Bench's order, the Supreme Court held that its reasoning was unsustainable and unacceptable.
Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “The single judge of the High Court is fully justified in passing an interim order on October 16, 2007 appointing the CBI to investigate the unnatural death and submit a report.”
The CBI was justified in recording an FIR on October 19, 2007 in terms of this order. “Inasmuch as the direction of the single judge is in accordance with law and the CBI investigated the case in terms of the said order and submitted a report based on which it was permitted to file a report before an appropriate court and also adduced liberty to reinvestigate the issue, the Division Bench has erred in directing the CBI to start investigation afresh by treating the complaint of Rukbanur Rahman, brother of the deceased, dated September 21, 2007 as an FIR and to register a case of murder,” the Supreme Court said.
“There was no need to register another FIR when in respect of the same offence an FIR had already been registered. Once an FIR had been registered lawfully and investigation conducted, leading to the filing of the charge sheet before the competent court for the trial of accused persons, there was absolutely no justifiable reason for the Division Bench to direct re-registration of the same by lodging another FIR after three years and proceed with the investigation which had already been concluded by the CBI.”
No adverse remark on probe
It said: “The Division Bench has failed to note that a fresh investigation into the same allegation would be a futile exercise and no purpose would be served by investigating the case afresh, more particularly, when there is no adverse comment on the investigation carried out by the CBI. The de novo investigation by lodging another FIR would result in delay of justice since the Division Bench has ordered [the CBI] to conduct the same investigation under the same sections started three years ago by the same agency.”
