“No Locus Standi of an Accused to Appeal Against Transfer-of-Investigation Orders” – Commentary on Sahajahan Sk. & Anr. v. Supriya Mandal Gayen & Ors., Calcutta High Court (2025)

1. Introduction

The Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench, comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Prasenjit Biswas, in Sahajahan Sk. & Anr. v. Supriya Mandal Gayen & Ors. (MAT 1054 of 2025), tackled a recurring yet unresolved procedural question: Can an accused, who was neither arrayed as a respondent nor heard in a writ petition, maintain an appeal challenging a Single-Judge order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over further investigation?

The case arises from alleged post-poll violence in West Bengal, relating specifically to Nazat P.S. Case No. 142 of 2019. Although the police had already filed a charge-sheet in 2022, the de-facto complainant (writ petitioner) approached the High Court in 2024, alleging a perfunctory investigation and seeking CBI intervention. A Single Judge granted the prayer. The present appellants—accused persons in the FIR but non-parties in the writ petition—sought leave to appeal against that order, contending inter alia (i) unexplained delay of the writ petition, (ii) political vendetta, and (iii) infringement of their rights.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Bench dismissed CAN 1 of 2025 (application for leave to appeal) and, consequently, the main appeal (MAT 1054 of 2025).
Key holding: An accused has no vested right (i) to choose or oppose the investigating agency, (ii) to be impleaded or heard at the stage of investigation, or (iii) to appeal against an order transferring investigation.
The Court reiterated that audi alteram partem principles do not extend to the investigative stage vis-à-vis an accused, drawing on a consistent Supreme Court line.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court’s reasoning rested on a robust foundation of Supreme Court and High Court authorities:

Narmada Bai v. State Of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 – Affirmed that an accused lacks the right to select or object to the investigating agency.
Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 65 – Reiterated that an accused has no right to be heard at the investigation stage.
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State Of Gujarat, (2014) 4 SCC 626 – Exhaustively catalogued authorities stating principles of non-participation of accused during investigation.
Ramachandraiah v. M. Manjula, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 893 – The Supreme Court’s most recent articulation that a suspected/accused person cannot question a court’s discretion to entrust CBI with investigation.
Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata Zonal Office v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2417 – Upheld the High Court’s power to assign cases involving public officials to CBI.
Cases cited—but distinguished or found irrelevant by the Bench—Dalip Singh (2010), Udit Narain Singh Malpharia (1963), and Hasmukhlal D. Vora (2022) were relied on by the appellants but held inapposite because they concerned (a) false pleadings, (b) necessary parties in certiorari proceedings, and (c) Section 482 CrPC limitations, none dealing with an accused’s right to appeal in writ-driven investigative transfers.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Maintainability Test: The Court first examined whether an “affected” non-party accused has locus standi. Citing Ramachandraiah and Dinubhai Solanki, it concluded that the investigative stage in a criminal process is entirely within the domain of the State/court, not the accused.
Audi Alteram Partem Inapplicability: The Bench underscored that principles of natural justice, while fundamental, are not automatically applicable at every procedural juncture. They do not attach to investigative decisions—consistent with Section 173 CrPC and Supreme Court dicta.
Distinction between Trial Rights and Investigation Rights: Although an accused gains extensive protections at trial (cross-examination, evidence disclosure, constitutional safeguards), those rights do not translate into a pre-trial entitlement to influence the choice or conduct of the investigating authority.
No Prejudice Demonstrated: Even if arguendo a right existed, the appellants could not demonstrate concrete prejudice from a higher-level investigation; at best, they intimated inconvenience or political motive, grounds insufficient to override public interest in a fair probe.
Exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction: Under the Letters Patent and Code of Civil Procedure, a person not impleaded below ordinarily cannot maintain an intra-court appeal unless the order directly affects their vested right. The Bench found no such vested right.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation and Criminal Procedure

Consolidation of Jurisprudence: The decision cements a clear barrier to accused-initiated appeals in matters of investigative transfer, offering doctrinal clarity for subordinate courts and litigants.
Efficiency in Writ Jurisdiction: Writ petitioners seeking CBI/SIT probes will no longer need to implead all suspects, minimizing procedural drag while preserving the accused’s post-investigation remedies.
Strategic Litigation — Reduced Dilatory Tactics: The ruling forecloses a tactical avenue whereby suspects file appeals merely to delay or derail independent investigations.
Guidance for Other High Courts: Although aligned with Supreme Court precedent, the explicit articulation by a Division Bench provides persuasive authority, particularly for High Courts lacking direct precedent on intra-court appeal maintainability.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Locus Standi: The right of a person to appear in court and seek relief. Here, the court held that an accused does not have locus standi to challenge a transfer-of-investigation order.
Transfer/Entrustment of Investigation: A superior court’s power to hand over an ongoing criminal probe from the local police to a central or specialised agency (e.g., CBI) when impartiality or competence is questioned.
Rule of Audi Alteram Partem: Latin for “hear the other side.” One of the pillars of natural justice, requiring that a person be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before decisions affecting them are made. The court clarified that this rule does not apply at the investigative stage for an accused.
Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) / MAT: An intra-court appeal within the same High Court (from a Single Judge to a Division Bench). MAT (Miscellaneous Appeal Tribunal) is the Calcutta High Court’s nomenclature for certain LPAs.

5. Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s pronouncement in Sahajahan Sk. decisively affirms that an accused cannot interpose themselves into writ proceedings—or subsequent intra-court appeals—merely because the outcome touches on the investigative process involving them. The Bench harmonises High Court practice with Supreme Court jurisprudence, shutting the door on delays engineered through collateral appeals and reinforcing the principle that investigative autonomy is paramount, constrained only by judicial oversight in the public interest, not by the preferences of suspects.

Key Takeaways:

No right of audience or appeal for the accused at the stage of investigation transfer orders.
Audi alteram partem and natural justice principles do not apply universally; they are context-specific.
Courts retain wide discretion to assign CBI/SIT investigations without notice to or consent from accused persons.
This decision will expedite independent probes and curtail frivolous procedural challenges.

In the broader legal landscape, the ruling fortifies a consistent doctrine: public confidence in criminal justice hinges on the independence of investigation, not on the convenience of the accused.