Fair Investigation as a facet of Article 21: Delhi High Court’s Power to Order a Fresh CBI Probe Despite Closure Report and Alternate Remedy – Commentary on Anu Duggal v. State & Ors. (2025 DHC 10526)

Fair Investigation as a Facet of Article 21: Delhi High Court’s Power to Order a Fresh CBI Probe Despite Closure Report and Alternate Remedy
Commentary on Anu Duggal v. State & Ors., 2025 DHC 10526 (Delhi High Court, 27 November 2025)

1. Introduction

The judgment in Anu Duggal v. State & Ors. concerns the mysterious death of a 23‑year‑old hotel management graduate, Arnav Duggal, whose body was found in the Delhi flat of his friend and alleged partner, Megha Tiwary (MT), on 13 June 2017. The case was initially treated by the Delhi Police as a straightforward suicide by hanging. Arnav’s mother, Anu Duggal (the petitioner), alleged that the death was homicidal, that crucial evidence was ignored or tampered with, and that the police investigation was biased, perfunctory and pre‑decided on the “suicide” theory.

Repeated complaints to senior police officials did not produce an FIR. It was only after the petitioner invoked Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (1973) before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), Dwarka, that FIR No. 45/2018 was ordered to be registered under Section 302 IPC (murder). Even thereafter, the investigation, successively handled by the local police, the Crime Branch, and then a Special Investigation Team (SIT), continued along the same trajectory of treating the case as suicide, culminating in a closure report dated 29 August 2024.

In these circumstances, the petitioner invoked the Delhi High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a fresh / de novo investigation.

The judgment by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela is significant on multiple fronts:

  • It rigorously re‑examines the factual matrix, including forensic reports, call detail records (CDRs), and trial court orders monitoring the investigation.
  • It synthesizes Supreme Court precedent on when and how High Courts can transfer investigations to the CBI under Article 226.
  • It articulates that fair investigation is part of the right to life under Article 21, belonging to both victim and accused.
  • It clarifies that the presence of an “alternate remedy” (such as filing a protest petition before the Magistrate) does not bar the High Court from directing a CBI investigation where the Magistrate has no power to do so.

This commentary analyses the judgment’s reasoning, the precedents it relies on, and its implications for the law on transfer of investigations and the constitutional right to a fair investigation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1 Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

  • Transfer of investigation in FIR No. 45/2018 (under Section 302 IPC) from the Delhi Police to the CBI; and
  • A fresh / de novo investigation into the circumstances of Arnav’s death.

2.2 Principal Findings

After extensively reviewing the record and submissions, the High Court found, inter alia, that:

  • The investigation by the local police, Crime Branch and SIT was “lackadaisical”, “shoddy” and “myopic”, predicated almost entirely on MT’s version of suicide, without independent critical scrutiny.
  • There were serious and unexplained investigative lapses, including:
    • Non-registration of FIR for months despite suspicious death and specific complaints;
    • Failure to seize and preserve the ceiling fan from which the deceased allegedly hanged, and allowing it to be sold as scrap;
    • Glaring inconsistencies regarding photographs of the crime scene and their non‑production until compelled by the CMM;
    • Delayed and defective handling of mobile phones, including credible indications of tampering with MT’s seized phone while in the police malkhana;
    • Failure to promptly obtain and analyse clone images of digital devices;
    • Unexplained failure to rigorously examine call detail records, the timing of discovery of the body, and crucial witnesses such as MT’s cousin and relatives whom she called after discovering the body;
    • Unpersuasive and shifting explanations by MT and her father (RT) about the fan, the timing of discovery, and other material circumstances;
    • Persistent resistance to alternative hypotheses (homicide or abetment to suicide), despite express red flags noted by the Magistrate.
  • The CMM, while monitoring the investigation, had repeatedly and in strong terms recorded judicial displeasure and concern over:
    • Pre‑determined eagerness to treat the case as suicide;
    • Concealment or non‑production of crucial photographs;
    • Non‑use of statutory powers (such as under Section 91 Cr.P.C.) to obtain records; and
    • Failure to explore obvious lines of inquiry suggested by the evidence.
  • The cumulative deficiencies created a legitimate and serious doubt about the integrity, impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation, thus eroding public confidence and the victim’s faith in the process.

2.3 Legal Conclusions

Applying the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on transfer of investigations to CBI, the High Court held:

  • The case falls within the category of “rare and exceptional” matters where a CBI investigation is justified and necessary to “provide credibility and instil confidence in the investigation” and to prevent miscarriage of justice.
  • The availability of an alternate remedy via a protest petition against the closure report before the CMM is inadequate because:
    • The CMM has no power to order transfer of investigation to CBI; and
    • Directing the petitioner to that route would render any eventual finding about the need for a CBI probe otiose and nugatory.
  • Even though a closure report has been filed, timing is no bar to exercise of Article 226 powers; the High Court can order a fresh CBI investigation even at this stage.

2.4 Operative Directions

The Court, therefore:

  1. Directed CBI to:
    • Take up a fresh investigation into the circumstances of Arnav’s death; and
    • Complete the investigation expeditiously.
  2. Directed the Delhi Police / other agencies to:
    • Hand over the entire record and evidence to CBI within four weeks.
    • Extend full cooperation to CBI.
  3. Directed CBI to also:
    • Conduct an enquiry into the lapses by Delhi Police officers, and
    • Submit its report to the CMM and Commissioner of Police, for consideration of disciplinary action where deliberate acts or omissions are found.

The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of in these terms.

3. Factual and Investigative Background

3.1 Relationship and Events Leading up to the Death

The Court recounted, primarily from witness statements and documentary material, that:

  • Arnav and MT were in a close relationship for 2–3 years, with multiple trips together (Jaipur, Rishikesh, Roorkee, Kasauli, etc.).
  • They spent 11 June 2017 together at Hotel Radisson Blu, Dwarka, from about 7:40 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
  • On the night of 12–13 June 2017, Arnav, MT and friends (SC, QZ, HK) partied across several locations in Delhi–NCR.
  • In the morning of 13 June 2017, after dropping others, Arnav and MT again went to Radisson Blu but, due to non‑agreement over room tariff, proceeded to MT’s flat at Shakuntalam Apartments, Dwarka, entering around 8:00 a.m.
  • CCTV footage confirmed Arnav and MT entering the complex, Arnav re‑entering under the name “Atul”, and Arnav ascending with a wine bottle and a box (petitioner says cheese; prosecution says cigarettes).

3.2 Discovery of the Body and Initial Police Response

The official version (broadly aligned with MT’s statements and the closure report) was that:

  • MT, exhausted, allegedly locked herself in a room and slept while Arnav remained in the drawing room after she refused to reconcile their relationship.
  • She purportedly awoke on a landline call from her father between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m., and then discovered Arnav allegedly hanging from the ceiling fan, with a cloth ligature.
  • She claims to have cut the ligature with scissors or a knife, brought the body down, and called her father and friends.
  • The PCR call was not made by MT or RT but by the security staff / Managing Committee of the society at 5:25 p.m., stating that “a boy has committed suicide”.
  • The local police arrived, conducted an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and treated the death as suicide.

The parents of the deceased were summoned to the apartment complex without being told that their son was dead; they allege that the room appeared to be “dressed up” to support a suicide narrative and that the police expressly told them there was “nothing to investigate”.

3.3 Non‑registration of FIR and Recourse to Magistrate

Despite:

  • The suspicious circumstances of death; and
  • Repeated complaints by the petitioner to senior officers,

no FIR was registered for months. The family ultimately approached the CMM under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., placing on record, inter alia, crime scene photographs received anonymously which showed, among other things, a dust‑laden fan with cobwebs allegedly from which the deceased had hanged.

By a detailed order dated 17 February 2018, the CMM:

  • Directed registration of FIR under appropriate provisions (resulting in FIR No. 45/2018 under Section 302 IPC);
  • Found that the police had displayed a pre‑determined mind to declare the case a suicide from the very beginning;
  • Noted concealment and selective production of crucial photographs;
  • Questioned why proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated instead of registering an FIR, despite the parents alleging foul play;
  • Expressed concern that the polygraph test of MT appeared to have been conducted “in a rudimentary manner, seemingly as a formality”.

The CMM also directed transfer of the matter from the then IO (Inspector Sunil Jain), sought his explanation, and called upon the Commissioner of Police to inquire into the lapses.

3.4 Monitoring by the CMM and Constitution of SIT

Subsequent orders of the CMM are especially important, because the High Court later relies heavily on them to test the bona fides of the investigation:

  • 28 April 2018 order: Recorded surprise that post‑mortem photographs had not been brought on the police file; ordered that all such photographs, the Visitor’s Register and CCTV footage be placed on the judicial record and supplied to the complainant.
  • 25 May 2018 order: Noted that successive IOs were “showing exceptional stubbornness and resistance to even the possibility of any alternative view”, and that investigation was being conducted with one pre‑set theory in mind.
  • 7 July 2018 order:
    • Admonished the SIT for showing “utter helplessness” in obtaining basic records such as landline CDRs and for failing to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C.;
    • Highlighted that witnesses chosen for examination were largely MT’s friends, who alleged substance abuse by the deceased, while the post‑mortem did not reveal such abuse;
    • Queried why the debit card and driving licence of the deceased were with a particular individual, and why no investigation had been done into the alleged use of the deceased’s card on the date of death;
    • Pointed out that SIT members were only eager to answer questions favourable to their line of investigation and pleaded ignorance on lapses;
    • Directed personal presence of DCP (Crime) and all SIT members on the next date.

Despite these detailed judicial admonitions, the High Court finds that the trajectory of the investigation remained unchanged.

4. Precedents Cited and Their Influence on the Decision

4.1 Core Supreme Court Line on Transfer to CBI

The High Court’s legal framework is built on a well‑established line of Supreme Court authorities, most prominently:

These cases collectively lay down that:

  • High Courts and the Supreme Court, under Articles 226 and 32, have plenary powers of judicial review and can direct CBI or other independent agencies to investigate offences, notwithstanding statutory limitations under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
  • Such power must be exercised:
    • Sparingly,
    • Cautiously, and
    • Only in exceptional and rare situations, such as:
      • Where high officials are involved or the state police is itself under a cloud;
      • Where investigations are prima facie tainted or biased;
      • Where a CBI probe is “imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies”;
      • Where necessary to do complete justice and enforce fundamental rights, especially fair investigation as part of Article 21.
  • The mere existence of allegations against local police, or a routine dissatisfaction with investigation, is not enough to justify transfer to CBI.

The High Court quotes CPDR and Rajendran at length to underscore these constraints, explicitly acknowledging that CBI should not be “flooded” with routine cases lest it lose credibility.

4.2 Fair Investigation as Part of Article 21

Relying on decisions such as:

  • Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1;
  • Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441;
  • Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254;
  • Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158;

the Supreme Court has consistently held that:

  • Fair investigation is the “backbone of the rule of law” and a necessary precondition for a fair trial.
  • It is a constitutional requirement, flowing from Articles 20 and 21, benefitting both accused and victim.
  • Where an investigation is “sham, biased or perfunctory”, courts must intervene to prevent miscarriage of justice.

The High Court explicitly adopts this framework: truth‑seeking is the core of criminal process, and impartial investigation is indispensable to that truth‑seeking function.

4.3 Power to Order Fresh / De Novo Investigation, Even Post Charge‑sheet / Trial

In Dharampal, Pooja Pal, Neetu Kumar Nagaich v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 16 SCC 777, and Mithilesh Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court held that:

  • Even after a charge‑sheet or closure report is filed, Constitutional Courts can:
    • Direct further investigation by the same agency;
    • Order fresh / de novo / re‑investigation by another, independent agency such as CBI; and
    • Even intervene mid‑trial, if justice so demands.
  • The stage of the proceedings (pre‑charge, post‑charge, even post‑acquittal in some contexts) is not an absolute bar, provided the Court is satisfied serious miscarriage of justice would otherwise occur.
  • What is crucial is an “adverse deduction vis‑à‑vis the quality of investigation” and the risk of subversion of the justice delivery system.

Justice Gedela quotes these decisions to emphasise that the existence of a closure report does not tie the High Court’s hands. The focus remains on whether the investigation, judged in context, inspires confidence.

4.4 Bharati Tamang: Duties of Court When Faced with Defective Investigation

In Bharati Tamang, the Supreme Court distilled several important principles, which the High Court reproduces and applies:

  • If deficiencies in investigation or prosecution attempts to “hide realities” are visible, courts must deal with them “with an iron hand”.
  • Prosecutor and court share a duty to ensure that “full and material facts are brought on record” to avoid miscarriage of justice.
  • Courts may:
    • Constitute Special Investigation Teams;
    • Direct transfer of investigation to CBI;
    • Monitor the investigation; and
    • Do so even after a charge‑sheet has been filed.

These principles clearly inform the High Court’s conclusion that it must step in, rather than leave the petitioner to an inadequate remedy before the Magistrate.

5. Court’s Legal Reasoning

5.1 The “Rare and Exceptional” Standard Satisfied

Justice Gedela is acutely aware of the Supreme Court’s caution that CBI investigations cannot be ordered routinely. Much of the judgment is devoted to:

  • Testing whether the case is truly exceptional; and
  • Demonstrating that the investigation is so compromised that public confidence and the victim’s right to fair investigation stand imperilled.

The Court does this by methodically cataloguing:

  • Investigative omissions (what was not done at all);
  • Procedural irregularities (what was done but wrongly);
  • Factually dubious explanations advanced by the prosecution; and
  • Judicial observations of the CMM indicating systemic reluctance to probe beyond the suicide narrative.

5.2 Specific Lapses Found Indicative of a Tainted / Biased Investigation

Some key lapses and anomalies flagged by the Court, which cumulatively justify CBI intervention, include:

(a) Handling and Tampering of MT’s Mobile Phone

  • MT’s phone, a crucial device given she was the only person present in the flat, was:
    • Not seized immediately upon police arrival (around 5:30 p.m.), but only around 10:30 p.m., leaving time for deletion of messages, calls and social media content.
    • Seized in switched‑ON condition and stored in a sealed plastic box in the malkhana.
    • Yet, FSL records showed the phone was powered ON and OFF 22 times between 13 and 23 June 2017, during which period it was supposedly sealed.
  • The FSL expert (Dr. Jagjeet Singh) opined there were two possibilities:
    • manual interference; or
    • a stuck power button causing automatic switching.
    But manual interference could not be ruled out.
  • The High Court finds the “stuck button” explanation “absurd to say the least”, especially given the sealed box and lack of any contemporaneous notes.
  • It notes that:
    • Deletion of data was indeed detected;
    • There was no convincing explanation from the police; and
    • Even if the content deleted was allegedly “non‑incriminating”, the fact of tampering with a seized exhibit is itself gravely suspicious.

(b) Non‑seizure and Disposal of the Ceiling Fan

  • The ceiling fan was:
    • Admittedly the alleged suspension point for the hanging;
    • Not seized, examined, or preserved by the IO;
    • Subsequently removed and sold as scrap by MT’s father (RT) on the plea that its blades were bent.
  • However:
    • Crime scene photographs (including those supplied anonymously) showed a fan covered in dust and cobwebs, apparently undisturbed and with blades intact;
    • Crime Scene Report itself noted that blades were intact;
    • RT’s statements about bent or straight blades were self‑contradictory over time.
  • The prosecution’s contention that “in suicidal hanging cases, fans are not usually seized” was rejected by the Court as unsupported and unpersuasive, especially given the suspicious condition of the fan.

(c) Crime Scene Photographs and Incomplete Record

  • There was no clear documentation of:
    • How many photographs were taken by the crime team photographer (HC Banwari Lal);
    • When and how they were handed to the IO; and
    • Why crucial photographs (including of the fan and the back of the deceased) were initially absent from the police file.
  • The petitioner’s receipt of anonymous photographs revealed images not included in police records, prompting the CMM to question the integrity of the case file.
  • Even negatives of photographs were only produced after repeated judicial orders, and one set of negatives corresponded precisely to the anonymously supplied images — contradicting earlier claims of ignorance by the Crime Branch.

(d) Failure to Explore Obvious Lines of Inquiry

  • Despite the call logs showing MT speaking to her cousin (Hitesh/Hetish) and grandfather‑figure (B. Tiwary) soon after “discovering” the body, neither was examined by the IO.
  • Similarly, incongruities in RT’s claim about calling MT on the landline were not resolved by obtaining complete landline CDRs (only mobile CDRs were partially obtained).
  • The debit card transaction of the deceased on the date of death, flagged by the petitioner, was apparently not investigated at all.

(e) Pre‑determined Suicide Theory and Non‑registration of FIR

  • Despite the suspicious nature of death and parental allegations, the police:
    • Did not register an FIR for several months;
    • Confined itself to an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C.;
    • Persisted with the suicide narrative even after judicial directions and red flags.
  • Even upon registration of FIR (under Section 302 IPC) by order of the CMM, the police:
    • Did not seriously examine the possibility of homicide, or even abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, despite the absence of any proven suicide note, history of depression, or suicidal tendencies.
    • Seemed to treat the post‑mortem opinion of “asphyxia due to antemortem hanging” as “closing the door” on any further inquiry into why the deceased may have died by hanging, and whether any person may have abetted or staged it.

For the High Court, these lapses, viewed holistically, satisfy the threshold of a prima facie tainted / biased investigation justifying intervention.

5.3 Alternative Remedy Argument Rejected

The State argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy:

  • to file a protest petition against the closure report before the CMM; and
  • to seek further investigation by the same or another state agency.

The High Court rejects this for two key reasons:

  1. Jurisdictional limitation of the Magistrate The CMM:
    • Cannot order transfer of investigation to the CBI or another outside agency; his power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. extends only to directing “further investigation” by the police.
    Thus, even if persuaded of the need for a CBI probe, the CMM would be jurisdictionally powerless to grant it.
  2. Risk of nugatory proceedings If the petitioner were required to exhaust the protest petition route, and the CMM ultimately concluded that a CBI investigation is warranted, such a finding would still have to be placed before the High Court for implementation – making the intermediate step redundant and delaying justice.

Therefore, in these “compelling circumstances” and to “reach the truth finally”, the High Court considers it appropriate to exercise its own constitutional powers rather than relegating the petitioner to a limited statutory remedy.

5.4 Fresh Investigation vs. Further Investigation

The Court uses the terminology of “fresh investigations” or “de novo investigation” by CBI, which implies:

  • CBI is not constrained to merely supplement the existing investigation; it can start from first principles, re‑examine all material, and even disregard earlier conclusions if found unsound;
  • However, all existing material (including earlier forensic reports, CDRs, and statements) remain part of the record and can be evaluated for credibility and completeness.

This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s view in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, that Constitutional Courts can order fresh or de novo investigation where appropriate, while Magistrates are normally confined to directing “further investigation”.

5.5 Enquiry into Police Lapses and Disciplinary Consequences

An important feature of the judgment is the direction to CBI not only to re‑investigate the offence, but also to:

  • Conduct an enquiry into the lapses of Delhi Police officers involved in the investigation; and
  • Submit its report to the CMM and Commissioner of Police for possible disciplinary action where deliberate acts of omission/commission are found.

This integrates two goals:

  • Corrective: Ensuring that a competent agency revisits the investigation to ascertain the truth about Arnav’s death.
  • Deterrent / systemic: Sending a signal to investigating agencies that deliberate suppression or manipulation of evidence will not go unchecked, thereby reinforcing systemic accountability.

5.6 “Never Too Late to Search for Truth”

In an interesting comparative flourish, the Court invokes the infamous US cases of the Golden State Killer and the Green River Killer, where technological advances decades later led to successful apprehension and conviction of serial killers, to underline that:

  • Time lapse does not necessarily defeat the pursuit of truth; and
  • Advances in forensic science can revive and strengthen cases even long after the events.

This underpins the Court’s assertion that “it is never too late to search for truth”, and that stage of proceedings is no obstacle to ordering a CBI investigation where justice demands it.

6. Impact and Significance

6.1 Strengthening the Right to Fair Investigation under Article 21

The judgment reinforces and operationalises the principle that:

  • Fair investigation is an integral and enforceable aspect of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21;
  • This right belongs not only to the accused but also to the victim and their family;
  • Courts have a positive duty to intervene when investigations appear sham, biased, or grossly deficient.

By meticulously dissecting the investigative record and not stopping at formal compliance (e.g., existence of a closure report), the Court exemplifies substantive judicial review of investigation quality, not mere procedural correctness.

6.2 Clarifying the Role and Limits of Alternate Remedies

The judgment contributes a nuanced point to procedural law:

  • While the protest petition mechanism is important, it cannot be treated as a complete or adequate remedy where:
    • The Magistrate lacks the power to direct an independent agency investigation; and
    • The alleged infirmities go to the very integrity of the investigation rather than to mere gaps or insufficiency.
  • In such cases, recourse to Article 226 remains both necessary and appropriate.

6.3 Standards for Police Investigation and Forensic Handling

The decision sends a strong signal on investigative standards, particularly in relation to:

  • Immediate seizure and proper sealing of critical exhibits (e.g., mobile phones, ligature, fan, weapons);
  • Preservation of digital evidence and need for prompt cloning and forensic imaging;
  • Complete and candid production of crime scene photographs and forensic records before the court;
  • Use of statutory powers (e.g., Section 91 Cr.P.C.) to obtain CDRs and other documentary records;
  • Duty to investigate all plausible hypotheses (including homicide and abetment to suicide) rather than adopting the easiest narrative.

Investigating agencies, particularly in suspicious death cases, can expect their conduct to be measured against these benchmarks in future writ petitions seeking transfer of investigation.

6.4 Empowerment of Victims and Families

The judgment offers a template for:

  • How victims and families can document investigative lapses, using:
    • CDRs;
    • Photographs and digital data;
    • Orders of the Magistrate monitoring investigation;
    • Forensic timelines and inconsistencies.
  • How such material, when marshalled coherently, can persuade a High Court that the case meets the “rare and exceptional” standard for a CBI probe.

It thus strengthens the jurisprudence that victims are not passive spectators but have a constitutionally recognised stake in the integrity of criminal investigations.

6.5 Institutional Accountability of Police

By mandating a CBI enquiry into police lapses, with potential disciplinary consequences, the judgment bolsters:

  • Internal and external accountability mechanisms within the policing system;
  • A culture that recognises that tampering with evidence or conducting sham investigations will be scrutinised and may have career repercussions.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Article 226 and Writ Jurisdiction

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, High Courts can issue orders, directions or writs (like habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari) to enforce:

  • Fundamental rights; and
  • “Any other” legal rights.

This power is:

  • Wide and flexible;
  • Not barred by any ordinary statute; and
  • Exercised subject to self‑imposed judicial restraints.

Ordering a CBI investigation is one such extraordinary exercise of Article 226, done sparingly in exceptional cases.

7.2 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Magistrate’s Power to Direct Registration of FIR

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (1973) empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to:

  • Register an FIR; and
  • Investigate a cognizable offence.

In this case, the CMM used this power to direct registration of FIR No. 45/2018 after the police failed to act on the petitioner’s complaint. However, the Magistrate:

  • Could not transfer the investigation to CBI; that is reserved to Constitutional Courts under Articles 226/32.

7.3 Section 174 Cr.P.C. – Inquest Proceedings

Section 174 Cr.P.C. deals with inquests by the police in cases of:

  • Suicide;
  • Suspicious or unnatural deaths;
  • Deaths under unusual circumstances.

It is intended as a preliminary inquiry, not a substitute for a full criminal investigation. The Court criticises the police for:

  • Relying solely on inquest proceedings to label the case as suicide; and
  • Using Section 174 mechanically, despite clear indications warranting a regular FIR and full investigation.

7.4 Closure Report and Protest Petition

When the police complete an investigation and believe that no case is made out against any accused, they file a closure report (a kind of negative final report) before the Magistrate.

The complainant can file a protest petition challenging the closure report, upon which the Magistrate may:

  • Accept the closure report and close the case;
  • Reject it and take cognizance of the offence (if there is enough material); or
  • Direct further investigation.

Here, the High Court concluded that this protest‑petition route was inadequate, because:

  • The Magistrate cannot bring in an independent outside agency like CBI.

7.5 Further Investigation vs. Fresh / De Novo Investigation

  • Further Investigation:
    • Continues from where the previous investigation left off;
    • Is normally conducted by the same agency (e.g., local police);
    • Is contemplated under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and can be ordered by Magistrates.
  • Fresh / De Novo Investigation/Re‑investigation:
    • Allows a new, independent agency (like CBI) to investigate from scratch;
    • Is ordered rarely, usually by High Courts or the Supreme Court under Articles 226/32;
    • Is meant for situations where the integrity of the initial investigation itself is compromised.

7.6 CBI and Delhi Special Police Establishment Act

The CBI derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Ordinarily, CBI can investigate offences in a State only:

  • With the consent of the State Government; or
  • When directed by the Supreme Court or a High Court under Articles 32/226.

The CPDR Constitution Bench held that no statute can curtail these constitutional powers of the higher judiciary.

8. Conclusion

The judgment in Anu Duggal v. State & Ors. stands out as a detailed and principled application of constitutional doctrine to a deeply troubling factual scenario. It reaffirms that:

  • Fair, honest and complete investigation is not a procedural luxury but a constitutional imperative under Article 21, owed equally to victims and accused.
  • High Courts must be prepared to exercise their extraordinary power to order CBI investigations in rare and exceptional cases, where:
    • Investigations are prima facie tainted or biased;
    • Material evidence is mishandled or tampered with;
    • Judicial directions by Magistrates are ignored or resisted;
    • Public and victim confidence have been severely undermined.
  • The presence of alternate statutory remedies does not absolve Constitutional Courts of their responsibility, especially where those remedies cannot provide the specific relief sought (such as transfer to CBI).
  • Courts can, and sometimes must, intervene even after closure reports or at advanced stages of proceedings, because the pursuit of truth is not time‑barred.

By directing a fresh CBI investigation and an enquiry into police conduct, the Delhi High Court has both:

  • Offered the petitioner and the public a renewed hope that the true circumstances of Arnav’s death will be fairly and comprehensively examined; and
  • Sent a clear institutional message that shoddy, biased or manipulated investigations will not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

In this sense, the decision significantly enriches the jurisprudence on fair investigation as a facet of Article 21 and clarifies the contours of High Court power to transfer criminal investigations to the CBI, even in the face of closure reports and ostensibly available alternate remedies.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Delhi High Court

Advocates

Comments