APHC010001892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 227/2024 Between: VENUGOPAL D, S/O K. DIVAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. KOYICKAL HOUSE, KANNAMANGAIAM NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA P.O, MAVELIKARA 690 106 ALAPPUZHA, KERALA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, C/O 6TH BN, APSP, MANGALGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM TOWN, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. M.SRAVAN KUMAR, Spl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR C.B.I. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent no.4, SHO, PS. Tadepalligudem to transfer the further investigation in FIR No. 115/2023 registered with P.S. Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District to the Respondent No.5 - CBI, Andhra Pradesh Unit and consequently direct the 5th respondent to conduct the further investigation regarding the death of Sri. Hari Divakaran and bring out the truth which led to his sudden and unexpected death.” 2 2. Heard Sri G.Elisha, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the death of Sri Hari Divakaran (hereinafter referred to as „the deceased‟) has been wrongly treated under Section 174 Cr.P.C., despite clear suspicious circumstances surrounding the incident. Learned counsel would further submit that the post- mortem report records the cause of death as head injury leading to hemorrhagic shock, which prima facie indicates possible assault and rules out a mere accidental fall. It is submitted that the scene of offence was not properly examined, and vital facts such as the position of the body and surrounding circumstances were not recorded, rendering the investigation defective. Learned counsel further submits that a video recording of the last moments shows the deceased collapsing near the gate and the presence of unidentified persons, yet no effort was made to identify or examine them. It is submitted that the mobile phone and crucial documents of the deceased are missing, and the body was hurriedly cremated, resulting in loss of vital evidence. Learned counsel argues that there existed prior threats and motive from the elder son of the deceased, which were ignored by the police. Learned counsel would finally submit that repeated representations by the Petitioner evoked no effective response, demonstrating laxity and lack of fair investigation. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, CBI transfer is an exceptional remedy, not a matter of routine. It 3 is further submitted that the Petitioner has failed to show any extraordinary circumstance such as proven mala fides in the investigation. The case was lawfully registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., inquest and post-mortem were conducted by competent authorities, and no medical evidence presently indicates homicidal death. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that, Police conducted thorough investigation in the matter and during investigation, none raised any suspicion behind the death of the deceased. Since no foul play is suspected over the death of the deceased in this matter, the action in this case has been dropped. It is further submitted that, the allegations of police laxity are bald and speculative, and mere dissatisfaction with the investigation cannot justify judicial transfer of the case. It is further submitted that the alleged family disputes do not substitute for evidence. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In the case at hand, the Case Diary has been called for. The Case Diary submitted by the SHO, Tadepalligudem Town Police Station Crime No. No.115 of 2023, reveals that, on 11.06.2023 at about 6:15 PM, the complainant Tatavarthi Venkatesh, landlord of the deceased, received information that his tenant i.e., the deceased, who was aged about 63 years, had collapsed near the steps of the rented house at Tadepalligudem. On reaching the spot, the deceased was found lying on the floor with froth coming out of his mouth. 108 Ambulance was called, and the deceased was declared dead. Based on the written complaint, Crime No.115/2023 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at 7:30 PM on the same day. The scene of offence 4 was inspected, CCTV footage from a nearby shop was examined, and the deceased was found to have fallen on his own. The body was preserved in the mortuary. 6. The Case Diary further discloses that, on 12.06.2023, the scene was re- examined in the presence of mediators and relatives; photographs were taken, CCTV footage verified, and a rough sketch prepared. Inquest proceedings were conducted at the Government Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, and the body was sent for post-mortem. The Doctor, who conducted post mortem and issued report opined that the cause of death was head injury leading to haemorrhagic shock. The CCTV footage was preserved with a Section 65-B certificate. During investigation, no suspicion or foul play was reported by any person. As no criminality was detected, the case was referred as accidental death vide proceedings of the SDPO, Tadepalligudem, dated 30.06.2023, and a Final Report was filed before the Mandal Executive Magistrate. A copy of the Final Report was also sent to the wife of the deceased, which was refused and returned. The deceased, an elderly person, accidentally slipped from the steps, sustained head injury, and succumbed. No foul play is suspected in the death. 7. The material on record discloses that the deceased had been residing separately from the family members since 16 months preceding to the date of his death. On the fateful day, he came in a drunken state, had collapsed near the steps and died. The same was observed by the worker of a Cloth Shop, 5 which is situated opposite to the house of the Complainant and informed to the Complainant. 8. The grievance of the Petitioner, who is the younger brother of the deceased, and who is residing in Kerala, is that the death is suspicious and that the investigation suffers from serious lapses such as non-examination of the scene of offence in proper manner, non-consideration of a video clip, missing personal belongings of the deceased, alleged motive and prior threats from family members, and hurried cremation of the body, thereby necessitating transfer of investigation to CBI. 9. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, though the Petitioner who is the younger brother of the deceased and who is residing in Kerala, requested the Police to keep the dead body of the deceased, the Police handed over the same to the wife and children of the deceased. However, admittedly, the Petitioner did not even come to place to the dead body of the deceased. The contention that the Doctor conducted postmortem in a lethargic manner, is not suffice to say that there is a link between the death of the deceased to his wife and children. 10. The law on the subject is well settled. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Vinay Aggarwal v. State of Haryana & Ors.1 categorically held that a High Court order directing transfer of investigation to the CBI must be supported by exceptional circumstances and prima facie material. “Ifs” and “Buts” or vague allegations are insufficient to put CBI into motion. 1 2025 INSC 433 6 11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in another decision in Legislative Council U.P., Lucknow v. Sushil Kumar2 held that CBI investigation orders by constitutional courts should be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations where prima facie material justifies such intervention 12. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court does not find any cogent or convincing material to conclude that the investigation conducted by the local police was biased, mala fide, or deliberately intended to shield any offender. The post-mortem report does not conclusively indicate homicidal death, and the allegations relating to family disputes and motive, in the absence of supporting evidence, cannot form the basis for ordering a transfer of investigation. 13. In the absence of any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for transfer of investigation to the CBI. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:04.12.2025 Dinesh 2 2025 INSC 1241 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.227 of 2024 Dt.04.12.2025 Dinesh