Accused Has No Say In Choice Of Investigating Agency | Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal Against CBI Probe In Post-Poll Violence Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court at Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Prasenjit Biswas dismissed a plea seeking leave to appeal against a prior order that had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct further investigation in a criminal case. The Bench held that an accused in a criminal case has no legal standing to challenge such an order and is not entitled to choose or contest the investigating agency appointed by the court. Concluding that the appellant was neither a party to the original writ petition nor possessed the right to intervene in investigative directives issued by the court, the Division Bench dismissed both the application for leave to appeal and the associated appeal.
The Court categorically held that the direction for a CBI investigation issued by a writ court is not open to challenge by a prospective suspect or an accused in a criminal case. Further, the Bench clarified that the High Court is not obligated to hear the accused or make them a party when directing an investigation by a specialized agency. Based on established judicial precedents, the Bench stated that the appellant had no right to be heard at the stage of investigation.
The matter before the Calcutta High Court concerned an appeal filed by an accused person seeking leave to challenge a writ court’s direction transferring the investigation of a criminal case to the CBI. The appellant had not been a party respondent in the original writ petition. The Division Bench adjudicated MAT 1054 of 2025, along with CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025. The proceedings arose out of Nazat Police Station Case No. 142 of 2019, which was one of three FIRs registered on June 8, 2019, following incidents related to post-poll violence. The appellant was one of the accused in this police case.
The original writ petition, WPA 702 of 2024, was filed by Respondent No. 1, seeking transfer of the investigation to a specialized agency, alleging perfunctory handling of the case by the local police. A chargesheet had already been filed in 2022 by the police in relation to Nazat Police Station Case No. 142 of 2019. The writ petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court in 2024, seeking intervention, citing a lack of thorough investigation.
The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was an unexplained delay in filing the writ petition, arguing that the cause of action arose in 2019 and culminated in a chargesheet in 2022. It was contended that the petitioner should have raised objections before the trial court instead of filing a writ in 2024. The Counsel further argued that the petition was motivated by political vendetta and should be dismissed on grounds of maintainability and delay.
Citing precedent, the appellant’s Counsel relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support the argument that the accused had a legitimate grievance. These included 2010 (2) SCC 114 Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 130 Udit Narain Singh Malpharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, and 2022 (15) SCC 164 Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu. Each of these was invoked to argue procedural irregularities and the necessity of the appellant’s inclusion in the writ proceedings.
In response, the Counsel for the writ petitioner (Respondent No. 1) argued that the appellant had no right to appeal. It was submitted that an accused cannot choose the investigating agency and has no enforceable right to intervene in investigative directions issued by the court. Several Supreme Court judgements were cited in support, including 2011 (5) SCC 79 Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, 2009 (6) SCC 65 Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 (4) SCC 626 Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 893 Ramachandraiah v. M. Manjula, and 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2417 Enforcement Director, Kolkata Zonal Office v. State of West Bengal.
The Respondent’s Counsel stated that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition and hence could not seek leave to appeal. The Respondent submitted that the question of an accused interfering with or challenging the court’s decision to assign the investigation to the CBI was legally untenable.
The Division Bench examined the matter in light of the legal precedents and submissions. It recorded: “Appellant is not a party respondent in the writ petition in which the impugned order was passed.” The Bench acknowledged that the appellant was an accused in the criminal case for which further investigation had been directed by the court.
In addressing the appellant’s right to be heard, the Bench stated: “As an accused, the appellant, does not have a right to be heard at the stage of investigation or have a say in the matter of an appointment of an investigating agency.” The Court referred to established principles in Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki and Narmada Bai to support its conclusion.
Quoting Paragraph 16 of the Ramachandraiah decision, the Court noted: “Once an FIR is registered and investigation has taken place, direction for an investigation by the CBI is not open to challenge by the prospective suspect or accused.” The Bench elaborated that this legal principle applies squarely to the present facts.
In rejecting the precedents cited by the appellant, the Court held: “Dalip Singh (supra) cannot be held to be an authority for the proposition that an accused in a criminal case has a right to prefer an appeal.” Regarding Udit Narain Singh Malpharia, the Court stated: “In the facts and circumstances of the present case the writ petitioner has not challenged any order of any authority in the writ petition.”
The Bench also observed: “Rule of audi alteram partem is not super imposed at the stage of investigation so far as an accused is concerned.” Further, it clarified: “The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract principles of natural justice.”
On the appellant’s attempt to characterize the writ petition as politically motivated and delayed, the Court declined to entertain this argument, citing absence of any legal ground allowing an accused to challenge the investigative mechanism designated by the High Court.
The Division Bench concluded: “High Court is not obliged to hear the accused or make the accused a party to a writ petition, in which, the writ petitioner has sought direction for investigation to be conducted by a particular investigating agency.”
The Court dismissed the applications filed by the appellant. The specific directions read as follows: “Consequently, CAN 1 of 2025 of the appellants seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of CAN 1 of 2025, CAN 2 of 2025 along with MAT 1054 of 2025 are also dismissed without any order as to costs.”
The Court thus refused leave to appeal on the ground that the appellant, being an accused and not a party to the original writ petition, had no legal standing to file an appeal. No costs were imposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Fazlur Rahman, Advocate; Mr. Md. Babul Hussain, Advocate; Ms. Dona Sanyal, Advocate; Mr. Mihinur Hossain, Advocate; Ms. Sulagna Sen, Advocate
For the Petitioner: Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Learned Senior Advocate; Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate; Ms. Sagnika Banerjee, Advocate; Ms. Tamoghna Pramanik, Advocate
For the Union of India: Ms. Reshmi Bothra, Advocate; Mr. Piyas Choudhury, Advocate
For the CBI: Mr. Dhiraj Trevedi, Learned Senior Advocate & Learned LSG; Mr. Amajit De, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI
Case Title: Sahajahan Sk. & Anr. v. Supriya Mandal Gayen & Ors.
Case Number: MAT 1054 of 2025 with CAN 1 and CAN 2 of 2025
Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Prasenjit Biswas
