Fresh probe into Rizwanur case a futile exercise: CBI

The Supreme Court on Wednesday posted for hearing on September 10 a CBI special leave petition challenging a Calcutta High Court order, which ordered a fresh investigation into the death of Rizwanur Rahman, treating it as a murder case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

A Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan fixed the date after hearing counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

A Division Bench of the High Court, in its May 18 order, said the CBI should treat the complaint by Rukbanur Rahman, brother of Rizwanur, as a first information report (FIR) and proceed with its investigation and submit a report within four months. Earlier, a single Bench asked the agency to investigate the cause of death of the computer graphics teacher.

Rizwanur, who was married to Priyanka Todi, daughter of industrialist Ashok Todi, was found dead on the rail track at Dum Dum on September 21, 2007, a month after the marriage. In October that year, the High Court ordered a CBI probe the death.

After investigation, the CBI filed a report holding that Rizwanur committed suicide, throwing himself before a train, and sought permission to file a charge sheet against Mr. Ashok Todi, his brother Pardeep Todi, brother-in-law Anil Saraogi, Rizwanur's neighbour S.M. Mohiuddin, the former Kolkata Deputy Commissioner of Police Ajoy Kumar, the former Assistant Commissioner of Police Sukanti Chakraborti and sub-inspector Krishnendu Das under Section 120-B (conspiracy), read with 306 (abetment to suicide) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. However, the High Court directed the CBI to start the investigation afresh, by treating Rukbanur's complaint, dated September 21, 2007, as an FIR and registering a case of murder.

The CBI pointed out that under the Criminal Procedure Code, there was no provision for registering a second FIR for the same offence when investigation had been lawfully carried out. The CBI said a fresh probe would be a futile exercise and no purpose would be served by investigating the case again. It would also result in delay of justice.