/2023 INSC 0132/
  REPORTABLE 
                   
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.634   OF 2023
       (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2454 of 2022)
Royden Harold Buthello & Anr.             .… Appellant(s)   
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.          …. Respondent(s)
With
Crl.Appeal No.635 of 2023 @ SLP (Crl.) No.7306 of 2022
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna, J.
1. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants, as also the respondents are common to
these appeals and the subject matter relates to the same issue.
Hence, they are taken up together and disposed of through the
1

common   judgment.   The   appeal   arising   out   of   SLP   Criminal
No.2454   of   2022   is   filed   assailing   the   order   dated   10.01.2022
passed   in   WPCR   No.   686   of   2020.   In   an   appeal   arising   out   of
the SLP Criminal No.7306 of 2022, the order dated 15.09.2021
passed   in   Criminal   Revision   No.468   of   2021   is   assailed.   Both
the said orders are passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh,
Bilaspur.
3. The   said   order   dated   10.01.2022   is   passed   in   Writ
Petition   filed   under   Article   226   wherein   the   appellant   had
prayed   to   direct   for   investigation   under   the   supervision   of   the
Court,  by   the   Central   Bureau   of  Investigation   (for   short,   ‘CBI’)
relating   to   (i)   FIR   No.   232/2020   registered   at   Azad   Chowk
Police   Station,   Raipur,   (ii)   FIR   No.255/2020   registered   at
Kotwali   Police   Station,   Raipur,   (iii)   Online   complaint   No.
3334104012000003   dated   27.10.2020   made   before   the
Superintendent of Police, Raipur and (iv) Online complaint No.
24488049072000014   dated   06.11.2020   made   before   the
Talcher   Police   Station,   Angul,   Odisha.   The   appellant   had   also
prayed to quash the charge sheet in Special Case No.87/2020
and   Special   Case   No.98/2020   filed   by   the   respondent   Azad
Chowk Police, Raipur and Kotwali Police, Raipur filed pursuant
2

to   the   said   FIRs   No.232/2020   and   255/2020,   pending   before
the learned Special Judge under NDPS Act, Raipur. The further
direction   which   was   prayed   is   for   the   CBI   to   submit   a
periodical progress report of the investigation to the Court and
to monitor the same.
4. In   the   connected   appeal,   the   challenge   is   to   the   order
dated   15.09.2021   whereby   the   Criminal   Revision   Petition   filed
by   the   appellant   herein,   before   the   High   Court   assailing   the
legality   and   correctness   of   the   order   dated   14.07.2021   passed
by the Special Judge under NDPS Act at Raipur in Special Case
No.98/2020   whereby   the   appellants   application   filed   under
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘CrPC’)   was   dismissed   and   charges   were   framed   against   the
appellant under Section 29 read with Sections 22(b), 22(c), 25
and 27 of the NDPS Act, which was not interfered by the High
Court.
5. The brief facts leading to the above appeals are that the
appellant   No.1   is   accused   of   indulging   in   sale   of   psychotropic
NDPS   substance,   due   to   which   the   prosecuting   agency   under
the respondent No.1 has registered the FIRs No.232/2020 and
255/2020   and   are   proceeding   in   the   matter   as   noted   above.
3

The   appellant   No.1   claims   to   be   innocent,   while   the   appellant
No.2   who   is   his   father   being   agitated   by   such   alleged   illegal
action   by   the   prosecuting   agency   under   the   respondent   No.1
had   filed   the   online   complaints   dated   27.10.2020   and
06.11.2020   raising   his   concern   and   sought   for   action   in   that
regard.
6. The appellants claim that they are residents of Mumbai
and the appellant No.1 is a qualified automobile engineer, who
is   an   income   tax   payee.   The   appellant   No.2   is   a   businessman
carrying   on   business   of   logistics,   transportation,   renting   out
vehicles   etc.   for   the   last   36   years   in   the   name   and   style,   M/s
Buthello   Travels   at   R/3,   Mathur   Estate,   Premier   Road,   Kurla
(W),   Mumbai.   The   appellant   No.1   was   also   taking   care   of   the
business   of   his   father   and   as   such   was   visiting   the   State   of
Odisha as also the State of Chhattisgarh in respect of contracts
relating   to   the   transportation   of   minerals.   It   is   averred   that
appellant   No.1   had   accordingly   travelled   to   Odisha   and   had
booked   room   no.220   in   Hotel   Green   Park,   Talcher,   District
Angul, Odisha from 15.10.2020 to 20.10.2020. It is the case of
the   appellants   that   on   20.10.2020   at   13.00   hours,   four
unknown   persons   visited   the   said   hotel   in   a   white   Innova   car
4

with   a   broken   front   bumper,   impersonating   themselves   as
police officers. They contacted Shri Vijaya who is working as a
receptionist   and   accordingly   met   the   appellant   No.1   in   room
No.220. The appellant No.1 was thereafter abducted and taken
into the car and was driven to Raipur.
7. The   appellant   No.1   claims   that   while   taking   dinner   at
dhaba between Sambalpur and Sonipat he overheard the name
of   the   four   persons   who   had   taken   him   to   be,   Pramod   Behra,
Sultan,   Santosh   and   Ali,   from   their   discussion.   He   also
contends   that   the   mobile   phone   was   with   the   appellant   No.1
and he made calls from his cell No. 8249518758. It is averred
that   after   reaching   Raipur   at   about   12:30   AM   on   21.10.2020
the   said   four   persons   took   the   appellant   No.1   to   respondent
No.5  where  he   was   detained   for   some  time  and   his  cell  phone
as also laptop were taken.  It is claimed that the appellant No.1
was thereafter kept in the lockup throughout the night without
disclosing   the   reasons   for   such   action   and   on   21.10.2020
about   19:15   hours,   police   Sub­inspector   Shri   Priyesh   Mathew
John   lodged   FIR   against   him,   bearing   No.232/2020   for   an
alleged offence under Section 22(b) of the NDPS Act. Thereafter
5

his   name   was   also   included   in   the   earlier   registered   FIR
No.255/2020 which is noted above.
8. In that background, the grievance put forth on behalf of
the   appellants   is   that   the   appellant   No.1   though   being   a
qualified citizen, who was travelling   with regard to his business
has   been   illegally   abducted,   detained   and   a   case   under   NDPS
has   been   foisted   on   him   due   to   which   online   complaints   were
lodged   by   his   father­   appellant   No.2.   It   is   in   that   light,   the
appellants   are   seeking   for   the   directions   as   prayed   and   noted
above.
9. The   respondents   have   filed   their   objection   statement
denying the allegations and also contending   with regard to the
involvement   of   the   appellant   for   which   he   has   been
apprehended and is proceeded against in accordance with law.
10. In   that   background,   we   have   heard   Shri   Shyam   Divan
and  Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan,  learned senior  counsel for
the   appellants,   Dr.   Abhishek   Manu   Singhvi,   learned   senior
counsel   for   the   State   of   Chhattisgarh   as   also   the   counsel   for
State of Odisha and perused the appeal papers.
11. At the threshold it is necessary to take note that though
initially   the   petition   filed   before   the   High   Court   had   included
6

the   relief   to   quash   the   charge   sheet   and   the   further
proceedings, considering that charges have been framed by the
trial court and also detailed orders have been passed declining
discharge of the appellant No.1, at present, the reliefs sought is
essentially   limited   with   regard   to   the   direction   to   the   CBI   to
conduct an investigation into the issue.
12. In that regard, the contention as noted is that, the FIR
No.232/2020 is registered on 21.10.2020 alleging that at about
19:15  hours  the appellant  No.1 was  apprehended by  the  Azad
Chowk Police when the appellant No.1 was near Ashram Tiraha
in front of Sulabh Complex Police Station, Azad Chowk, Raipur
attempting   to   sell   contraband   and   on   apprehending   9.240
grams cocaine was recovered from  him. It is contended by the
appellants   that   such   offence   could   not   have   been   alleged
against   the   appellant   to   have   been   committed   in   Raipur   on
21.10.2020,   when   in   fact   the   police   personnel   named   Pramod
Behra,   Sultan,   Santosh   and   Ali   of   Chhattisgarh   Police   had
abducted and taken away the appellant No.1 from the hotel in
Odisha  on  20.10.2020  itself.   As  such,    he  was  in  their  illegal
custody at the point when it is alleged that he had indulged in
committing   the   offence.   The   circumstances   are   referred   to
7

claim   that   there   is   something   more   than   what   meets   the   eye.
The concern expressed is that a citizen who is carrying on his
lawful   business   activities   in   various   states   has   been   ‘framed’
and   a  case  has  been  foisted,  whereby   the  personal  liberty   has
been taken away, which warrants a detailed investigation. It is
contended   that   the   situation   which   unfolded   in   Hotel   Green
Park on 20.10.2020 at about 1 PM would indicate that the said
four   persons   acting   on   behalf   of   the   Chhattisgarh   Police   had
taken   him   away   from   the   hotel.   Subsequent   thereto   his   name
has   been  included  in  FIR  No.255/2020  as well,  though  it  was
an earlier registered case.
13. The   learned   senior   counsel   for   respondent   No.1­State
would contend that the allegations are unjustified. Pursuant to
the registration of the FIR, an investigation has been conducted
and the charge sheet has been filed.   The contentions urged by
the   appellants   are   available   to   be   put   forth   in   defence,   in   the
proceedings before the trial court where the charges have been
framed   and   the   trial   is   proceeding.   Insofar   as   the   allegation
that   he   was   abducted   and   taken   away   from   the   hotel,   it   is
denied and contended that even though the police had gone to
Odisha  in   connection   with   the   earlier   F.I.R.,   they   were   unable
8

to   trace   the   appellant   No.1   there,   but   he   was   subsequently
found   to   be   indulging   in   the   illegal   activity   in   Raipur   itself
when   he   was   apprehended   and   proceedings   have   been
initiated. It is contended that the claim for investigation by the
CBI   is   without   basis   and   the   well   laid   down   guidelines   of   this
Court   does   not   permit   referring   the   investigation   to   CBI   in
every  case where the accused makes an allegation  against  the
law enforcing authorities.
14. Having   noted   the   rival   contentions,   we   have   also
perused   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   while
taking   note   of   the   plea   put   forth   by   the   parties.   In   fact,   the
High   Court   having   framed   two   points   for   its   consideration,   on
the aspect relating to the transfer of the case to CBI as sought
for,   has   considered   it   while   answering   point   No.2.     The
guidelines   as   laid   down   by   this   Court   has   been   referred   to   in
detail before adverting to the facts and has thereafter declined
the   prayer   for   referring   to   an   investigation   by   CBI.   In   that
background, as noted, the case sought to be made out seeking
for   CBI   investigation   is   on   the   allegation   that   the   appellant
No.1   has   been   illegally   detained   and   thereafter   was   charged
with   a   serious   offence,   though   he   is   completely   innocent.   In
9

this regard, it is contended that the allegation of the appellant
No.1   being   in   possession   of   9.240   grams   of   cocaine   on   his
person   and   that   he   was   attempting   to   sell   the   same   near
Ashram   Tihara   in   front   of   Sulabh   Complex   in   Raipur   on
21.10.2020, is a false case. It is to establish this aspect of the
matter  it  is  contended  that  the  police personnel of  respondent
No.1­State   of   Chhattisgarh   had   illegally   abducted   him   on   the
previous   day   itself   i.e.   on   20.10.2020   from   the   hotel   in   a
different   State   where   he   was   staying.     According   to   the
appellants,   it   is   a   foisted   case   against   appellant   No.1   with   an
illegal   and   ulterior   motive   and   the   matter   requires   a   detailed
investigation by the CBI.
15. The learned senior counsel for the appellants in order to
buttress  his  contention   with  regard  to  the  contradictory  stand
being   taken   by   the   respondents   has   sought   to   rely   on   the
affidavit filed before this Court. In that regard, an affidavit filed
by   respondent   Nos.1   to   5   before   this   Court,   the   counter
affidavit   filed   by   the   respondent   No.6­State   of   Odisha,   as   also
the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5
in reply to the affidavit filed by  the respondent No.6 are relied
upon. Though the specific averments contained in the affidavits
10

were placed before us and have been taken note of, by  us, we
do not propose to refer to each of the statements made   therein
to analyse the manner in which the learned senior counsel for
the   appellant   has  sought  to  highlight,  which   according  to   him
contradicts   the   stand   of   State   of   Chhattisgarh.   We   have
adopted   this   course   since   the   consideration   herein   is   the
limited scope of this petition and it should not affect the rights
of   the   parties   in   the   pending   criminal   proceedings.   Such   a
serious  dispute  on  facts, in   any   event,  is  to   be  resolved  based
on evidence and not based on affidavits.
16. However, the limited aspect which we propose to note is
that   the  affidavit  filed  by   the   respondent   No.6­State   of   Odisha
is   essentially   to   explain   the   manner   of   consideration   made   by
them   in   relation   to   FIR   No.0027   dated   22.01.2021   lodged   at
Talcher   Police   Station,   Angul   District,   Odisha   which   is
pursuant to the complaint on behalf of the appellants. The said
affidavit   also   refers   to   the   investigation   made   relating   to   the
online   complaint.   In   the   course   of   the   said   affidavit,   reference
has   been   made   to   the   process   of   investigation   during   which
they had visited the Green Park Hotel and recorded statements
relating   to   the   four   persons   having   come   to   the   hotel   and
11

having   introduced   themselves   as   Chhattisgarh   Police   and
asked them about the room number of the appellant No.1. The
staff of the hotel had indicated that the appellant No.1 himself
had   stated   that   there   is   no   problem   and   he   had   checked   out
after   paying   the   bill.   In   reply   to   the   said   affidavit,   the
respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have sought to indicate that even as per
the   said   affidavit,   appellant   No.1   himself   had   indicated   that
everything   was   alright   and   it   is   contended   that   even   so   far   as
the Police Officers mentioned by the appellants, they belong to
a different department. The learned senior counsel for the State
of   Chhattisgarh   in   fact   referred   to   the   counter   affidavit   on
behalf   of   the   respondent   Nos.   1   to   5   to   clarify   that   the   Police
Officers   of   the   Chhattisgarh   Police   having   travelled   to   Odisha
were   not   denied,   in   as   much   as,   they   have   disclosed   that   a
team of abled   Police Officers had travelled to Odisha to look up
for   the   appellant   and   his   whereabouts   but   it   was   of   no   avail
and   they   came   back   empty   handed.   It   is   therefore   contended
on   behalf   of   the   respondents   that   the   appellant   No.1   being   a
habitual offender was required to be investigated in relation to
FIR   No.255/2020.   Though   on   information,   an   attempt   was
made   to   apprehend   him   in   Odisha,   the   same   was   not
12

successful   but   he   was   found   in   Raipur   itself   the   next   day
where   he   was   indulging   in   the   illegal   activity   when   he   was
apprehended.   Hence   the   incident   in   Green   Park   Hotel   as   put
forth   by   the   appellants   is   disputed.   Whether   these   seriously
disputed   facts   justifies   the   prayer   seeking   for   investigation   by
CBI, is the question to be answered herein.
17. Having noted this aspect of the matter it is appropriate
to refer to the decision in the case of  State of West Bengal &
Ors.   vs.   Committee   for   Protection   of   Democratic   Rights,
West   Bengal   &   Ors.   (2010)   3   SCC   571   wherein   it   is   held   as
hereunder:­
“70.   Before   parting   with   the   case,   we   deem   it
necessary   to   emphasise   that   despite   wide   powers
conferred   by   Articles   32   and   226   of   the   Constitution,
while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind
certain   self­imposed   limitations   on   the   exercise   of
these   constitutional   powers.   The   very   plenitude   of   the
power under the said articles requires great caution in
its   exercise.   Insofar   as   the   question   of   issuing   a
direction   to   CBI   to   conduct   investigation   in   a   case   is
concerned,   although   no   inflexible   guidelines   can   be
laid down to decide whether or not such power should
be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated
that   such   an  order   is  not   to  be  passed  as  a  matter   of
routine   or   merely   because   a   party   has   levelled   some
allegations against  the  local police. This  extraordinary
power   must   be   exercised   sparingly,   cautiously   and   in
exceptional   situations   where   it   becomes   necessary   to
provide   credibility   and   instil   confidence   in
investigations or where the incident may have national
and international ramifications or where such an order
may   be   necessary   for   doing   complete   justice   and
13

enforcing   the   fundamental   rights.   Otherwise   CBI
would   be   flooded   with   a   large   number   of   cases   and
with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate  even  serious  cases  and in  the  process  lose
its   credibility   and   purpose   with   unsatisfactory
investigations.”
Also  Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.  
(2015) 9 SCC 795 wherein it is held hereunder:­
“12.   Even   so   the   availability   of   power   and   its   exercise
are   two   distinct   matters.   This   Court   does   not   direct
transfer   of   investigation   just   for   the   asking   nor   is
transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the
prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The
decision   whether   transfer   should   or   should   not   be
ordered   rests   on   the   Court's   satisfaction   whether   the
facts and circumstances of a given case demand such
an   order.   No   hard­and­fast   rule   has   been   or   can
possibly   be   prescribed   for   universal   application   to   all
cases.   Each   case   will   obviously   depend   upon   its   own
facts.   What   is   important   is   that   the   Court   while
exercising   its   jurisdiction   to   direct   transfer   remains
sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered
just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a
given conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable
apprehension about justice becoming a victim because
of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may
step   in   and   exercise   its   extraordinary   powers.   The
sensibility   of   the   victims   of   the   crime   or   their   next   of
kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all
transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not
imply that the transferee agency will necessarily, much
less falsely  implicate anyone in the commission of the
crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered
to   an   outside   agency   perceived   to   be   independent   of
influences, pressures and pulls that are commonplace
when   State   Police   investigates   matters   of   some
significance.   The   confidence   of   the   party   seeking
transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests
on   the   independence   of   that   agency   from   such   or
similar other considerations. It follows that unless the
Court   sees   any   design   behind   the   prayer   for   transfer,
the   same   must   be   seen   as   an   attempt   only   to   ensure
that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer
is   the   perceived   independence   of   the   transferee   more
than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the
14

ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do
it better than an agency that is independent.
13.   Having said that we need to remind ourselves that
this Court has, in several diverse situations, exercised
the   power   of   transfer.   In   Inder   Singh   v.   State   of
Punjab   this  Court   transferred   the   investigation  to   CBI
even   when   the   investigation   was   being   monitored   by
senior   officers   of   the   State   Police.   So   also   in   R.S.
Sodhi   v.   State   of   U.P.   investigation   was   transferred
even   when   the   State   Police   was   doing   the   needful
under   the   supervision   of   an   officer   of   the   rank   of   an
Inspector  General  of  Police   and   the   State  Government
had   appointed   a   one­member   Commission   of   Inquiry
headed by a sitting Judge of the High Court to enquire
into the matter. This Court held that however faithfully
the   police   may   carry   out   the   investigation   the   same
will   lack   credibility   since   the   allegations   against   the
police   force   involved   in   the   encounter   resulting   in   the
killing   of   several   persons   were   very   serious.   The
transfer   to   CBI,   observed   this   Court,   “would   give
reassurance   to   all   those   concerned   including   the
relatives   of   the   deceased   that   an   independent   agency
was looking into the matter”.
14.   Reference may also be made to the decision of this
Court   in   State   of   Punjab   v.   CBI   wherein   this   Court
upheld   the   order   transferring   investigation   from   the
State   Police   to   CBI   in   connection   with   a   sex   scandal
even   when   the   High   Court   had   commended   the
investigation   conducted   by   the   DIG   and   his   team   of
officers.   In   Subrata   Chattoraj   v.   Union   of   India,   this
Court   directed   transfer   of   the   Chit   Fund   Scam   in   the
States of West Bengal and Orissa from the State Police
to   CBI   keeping   in   view   the   involvement   of   several
influential persons holding high positions of power and
influence or political clout.
15.   Suffice   it   to   say   that   transfers   have   been   ordered
in varied situations but while doing so the test applied
by   the   Court   has   always   been   whether   a   direction   for
transfer, was keeping in view the nature of allegations,
necessary   with   a   view   to   making   the   process   of
discovery   of   truth   credible.   What   is   important   is   that
this   Court   has   rarely,   if   ever,   viewed   at   the   threshold
the   prayer   for   transfer   of   investigation   to   CBI   with
suspicion.   There   is   no   reluctance   on   the   part   of   the
Court   to  grant   relief   to the   victims  or   their   families   in
15

cases,   where   intervention   is   called   for,   nor   is   it
necessary for the petitioner seeking a transfer to make
out a cast­iron case of abuse or neglect on the part of
the   State   Police,   before   ordering   a   transfer.   Transfer
can   be   ordered   once   the   Court   is   satisfied   on   the
available material that such a course will promote the
cause of justice, in a given case.”
18. The   above­noted   decisions   are   in   fact   cited   by   the
learned Senior  Counsel for  the appellants to contend that this
Court   should   exercise   its   extraordinary   power   to   refer   to   the
matter   to   CBI   in   the   instant   facts.   In   that   regard,   it   is   also
necessary   to   note   that   the   High   Court   on   the   other   hand   has
referred   to   the   various   decisions   on   the   said   aspect   and   has
also taken into consideration the recent decision in the case of
Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India  (2020) 14 SCC 12
wherein   the   entire   aspect   has   been   crystalized   and   this   Court
has   held   that   the   power   to   transfer   an   investigation   must   be
used sparingly.  The relevant portion reads as hereunder:­
“52.   In assessing the contention for the transfer of the
investigation   to   CBI,   we   have   factored   into   the
decision­making calculus the averments on the record
and submissions urged on behalf of the petitioner. We
are unable to find any reason that warrants a transfer
of   the   investigation   to   CBI.   In   holding   thus,   we   have
applied   the   tests   spelt   out   in   the   consistent   line   of
precedent   of   this   Court.   They   have   not   been   fulfilled.
An   individual   under   investigation   has   a   legitimate
expectation   of   a   fair   process   which   accords   with   law.
The   displeasure   of   an   accused   person   about   the
manner   in   which   the   investigation   proceeds   or   an
unsubstantiated allegation (as in the present case) of a
16

conflict   of   interest   against   the   police   conducting   the
investigation   must   not   derail   the   legitimate   course   of
law   and   warrant   the   invocation   of   the   extraordinary
power of this Court to transfer an investigation to CBI.
Courts   assume   the   extraordinary   jurisdiction   to
transfer   an   investigation   in   exceptional   situations   to
ensure   that   the   sanctity   of   the   administration   of
criminal   justice   is   preserved.   While   no   inflexible
guidelines   are   laid   down,   the   notion   that   such   a
transfer   is   an   “extraordinary   power”   to   be   used
“sparingly”   and   “in   exceptional   circumstances”
comports   with   the   idea   that   routine   transfers   would
belie not just public confidence in the normal course of
law   but   also   render   meaningless   the   extraordinary
situations   that   warrant   the   exercise   of   the   power   to
transfer   the   investigation.   Having   balanced   and
considered   the   material   on   record   as   well   as   the
averments of and submissions urged by the petitioner,
we   find   that   no   case   of   the   nature   which   falls   within
the ambit  of the tests enunciated in the precedents of
this Court has been established for the transfer of the
investigation.”
19.           Hence   it   is   clear   that   though   there   is   no   inflexible
guideline   or   a   straightjacket   formula   laid   down,   the   power   to
transfer the investigation is an extraordinary power.  It is to be
used very sparingly and in an exceptional circumstance where
the Court on appreciating the facts and circumstance arrives at
the   conclusion   that   there   is   no   other   option   of   securing   a   fair
trial   without   the   intervention   and   investigation   by   the   CBI   or
such   other   specialized   investigating   agency   which   has   the
expertise.
20. In   that   background,   even   if   the   rival   contentions   are
taken   note,   we   do   not   find   that   there   is   any   issue   of   public
17

importance which requires to be unearthed by an investigation
to   be   conducted   by   the   CBI.   Even   from   the   facts   noted   above
and   the   allegations   made   against   the   police,   though   we   are
sensitive   to   the   sentiment   of   the   appellants   herein,   the
contention ultimately is that the offence alleged against him to
have   been   committed   on   21.10.2020   could   not   have   been
committed by  him  inasmuch  as he  had  been  abducted  from   a
different   State   and   was   already   in   the   illegal   detention   of   the
police   on   20.10.2020   itself.   This   essentially   would   be   the
defence   in   the   criminal   trial.   As   already   noted,   the   charges
have   been   framed   and   the   evidence   is   being   tendered.   Insofar
as  the allegation that  the said  persons  namely   Pramod Behra,
Sultan,   Santosh   and   Ali   had   gone   to   Odisha   and   had   illegally
abducted   him,   from   the   very   details   furnished   by   the
appellants   themselves,   it   is   noted   that   the   High   Court   had
through   the   order   dated   17.03.2022   in   a   collateral   proceeding
directed that the five officers stated in the said order be called
as witnesses for examination and cross­examination.
21. In that view, even though it is contended that the CCTV
footage would be relevant to establish the presence of the said
four persons in the hotel at Odisha and the same has not been
18

seized by the police, the fact remains that even from the same
what   is   sought   to   be   established   is   that   the   said  four   persons
had abducted the appellant No.1. In the course of trial the five
persons   specified   by   the   appellants   would   now   be   available   to
be cross­examined and any other orders in that regard can be
sought   in   the   pending   proceedings.   That   apart,   on   the   other
aspects   also   since   the   trial   is   under   progress,   the   appellant
No.1   would   be   entitled   to   put   forth   his   case   when   the
statement   under   Section   313   of   CrPC   is   recorded   and   also   he
would   be   entitled   to   tender   evidence   if   necessary.   The   case   of
the   appellant   is   clear   as   to   the   reason   why   he   contends   that
the   appellant   No.1   cannot   be   held   to   have   committed   the
offence   as   registered   in   FIR   No.232/2020   based   on   which   his
name   has   also   been   included   in   an   earlier   FIR   No.255/2020.
These are matters which could be established through evidence
in   the   trial   before   the   Competent   Court   in   the   judicial
proceedings   wherein   all   these   matters   would   be   appreciated
and   a   conclusion   would   be   reached.   In   that   regard,   the
appellants   in   any   event   would   have   the   further   remedy   of   the
legal course which is available to them if they  are dissatisfied.
Further,   insofar  as   the  complaint   said  to   have   been   lodged  by
19

the   appellant   No.2,     from   the   affidavit   as   filed   by   the
respondent   No.6,   the   nature   of   investigation   carried   out   by
them   has   been   stated.   In   that   regard   also   the   appellant   No.2
would have the legal remedy in accordance with law.
22. In   addition,   in   the   said   process   of   the   judicial
proceedings   if   the   appellants   bring   out   the   fact   that   the
appellant No.1 who was not involved, had been framed up and
a   case   was   foisted,   the   appellants   would   still   have   the   legal
remedy   to   take   action   for   malicious   prosecution,   loss   of
reputation, action against involved persons, compensation and
for   such   other   relief   in   that   regard.   Therefore,   when   the   issue
raised   is   only   a   matter   of   evidence   to   be   considered   in   the
judicial   proceedings   to   arrive   at   a   conclusion,   we   are   not
convinced   that   in   a   case   of   the   present   nature,   a   direction   to
the   CBI   to   hold   an   investigation   would   be   justified   nor   is   it
required   at   this   juncture   when   the   trial   in   the   judicial
proceedings  has  progressed unhindered. Hence  to   that  extent,
all   contentions   of   the   appellants   are   kept   open.     For   the   very
reason,   at   this   stage   either   quashing   or   discharge   would   also
not arise.   All contentions are left open to  be urged before the
trial court.
20

23. For   all   the   aforestated   reasons   we   see   no   reason   to
interfere  with  orders impugned  in  these appeals.   The  appeals
are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
24.   Pending applications if any, shall stand disposed of.
                                                  ……….… ..…………....................J.
(A. S. BOPANNA)
      ….……..…..………......................J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
New Delhi;
February 28, 2023
21