Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
A former IPS officer petitioned under Article 32 seeking transfer of two FIRs, one under the Indian Penal Code and one under the Information Technology Act, to the CBI or an independent agency. He argued the FIRs were filed to intimidate him as a witness in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases. He also asked for a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT), contempt action over e-mail exchanges involving the then Additional Advocate General, and directions to service providers to preserve e-mails.
Decision Breakdown
The Court dismissed the writ petitions and all connected applications. It held that no case had been made out for a fresh SIT. The earlier SIT had already completed its investigation and filed its final report, and under the principle laid down in the Jakia Jafri case the Court does not need to keep monitoring a case once a charge-sheet is filed. Transfer of an investigation after a charge-sheet is allowed only in extraordinary cases, and this was not one. The Court said the petitioner had not come with clean hands and must face investigation like anyone else. On contempt, the e-mail exchanges did not amount to substantial interference with justice, and the prayer was barred by the one-year limitation under the Contempt of Courts Act. The interim stay was lifted so the trial court could proceed and the IT Act investigation could be completed quickly. No costs were awarded.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will not take over a criminal investigation simply because a party alleges bias or harassment; the allegations must show a real reason, and transfers after a charge-sheet are rare. Contempt complaints about court-related conduct must generally be filed within one year, so delay can defeat them.