Mere Suspicion Of Homicide Cannot Warrant CBI Probe Transfer: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Father’s Plea For CBI Probe In Son’s Death Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke has dismissed a father’s plea to transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation the probe into his son’s disappearance and death. The petitioner alleged a homicidal angle and sought an independent investigation. Justice Phadke observed that, after the body was identified through DNA profiling, the investigating agency recorded statements of material witnesses, examined call-detail records, and considered medical and forensic material and surrounding circumstances before concluding that the death was by suicide, linked to emotional distress arising from personal and relationship issues. The Court held that suspicion, however strong, or a subjective belief of homicide cannot replace legally admissible material needed to justify a CBI transfer and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner; the father of a young man who went missing shortly before his scheduled marriage and was later found dead on a railway track. A missing person report was registered at one police station, while an unidentified dead body was recovered within the jurisdiction of another police station. Due to lack of coordination, the body remained unidentified for a considerable period.
The petitioner alleged that his son’s death was not a case of suicide and asserted that foul play was involved, pointing to the deceased’s relationship with a married woman and alleged threats from her family members. It was contended that the local police acted negligently, failed to explore homicidal or abetment angles, and prematurely concluded suicide despite an inconclusive post-mortem report.
The petitioner sought transfer of investigation relating to the missing person report and the merg inquiry to the Central Bureau of Investigation, along with directions for disciplinary and penal action against erring officials.
The State opposed the petition, stating that after initial lapses, a detailed investigation was conducted, statements of material witnesses were recorded, call detail records and forensic evidence were examined, DNA identification was completed, and departmental action had already been taken against negligent officers. The investigation concluded that the deceased committed suicide under emotional distress, and a closure report was submitted before the competent authority.
The Court observed that “serious lapses and lack of coordination were noticed at the initial stage of the investigation, particularly with regard to failure to correlate the missing person report with the recovery of an unidentified dead body from another police station jurisdiction.”
It recorded that “those lapses have already been judicially noticed, deprecated, and remedial directions were issued by this Court in the earlier habeas corpus proceedings.” The Court further noted that “departmental action has since been initiated and concluded against the erring police officials.”
On the prayer for transfer of investigation, the Court stated that “the said aspect cannot be reagitated to seek a fresh investigation by a different agency unless it is demonstrated that the subsequent investigation is vitiated by mala fides, bias, or deliberate suppression of material evidence.”
The Court recorded that “after identification of the deceased through DNA profiling, the investigating agency undertook a detailed investigation by recording statements of all material witnesses, examining call detail records, considering medical and forensic evidence, and analyzing the surrounding circumstances.”
With respect to the post-mortem report, the Court observed that “though the medical opinion records that the nature of death could not be ascertained and notes injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, such an opinion, by itself, cannot be construed as evidence of homicidal death.” It further stated that “medical opinion is only one component of the investigative process and must be appreciated in conjunction with circumstantial, forensic, and documentary evidence.”
The Court also recorded that "the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency that the deceased committed suicide due to emotional distress arising from personal and relational issues is based on evidence collected during investigation. Mere suspicion, however grave, or a subjective belief of the petitioner that a homicidal angle exists, cannot substitute legally admissible material warranting transfer of investigation"
On the scope of Article 226, the Court stated that “a direction for CBI investigation is not to be issued as a matter of routine or merely because the petitioner has lost faith in the local police.” It added that “the extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the Court is satisfied that the investigation is demonstrably unfair, tainted, or intended to shield the real culprits.”
The Court further observed that “the grievance of the petitioner pertains not to absence of investigation but to disagreement with the conclusion thereof.”
The Court recorded that “this Court finds no justification to direct transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen or re-investigate matters merely because an alternative inference is possible or because the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome. The writ petition is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Samar Ghuraiya, Government Advocate for the State; Shri Ravi Choudhary, Advocate
Case Title: Ramgopal Sakhwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-GWL:1670
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 19656 of 2025
Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
