RAU's Study circle case: Delhi HC requests CBI to appoint senior officer to monitor investigation

Father of a deceased student Nevin Dalvin moved to the High Court earlier seeking direction to change the Investigation officer. His plea was dismissed by the trial court.

Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma passed an order on November 27 on the petition moved by Dalvin Suresh and said, "In order to balance the rights, Director CBI is requested to appoint a senior officer to have regular monitoring of the investigation being conducted by the CBI. I consider that no further directions are required to be passed in the present petition."

"This Court hopes and trusts that CBI will keep the faith of the petitioner. The Court is conscious of the fact that the complainant or the petitioner in the present case may have some genuine concerns," Justice Sharma added.

The High Court said that however before parting, the Court considers the the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, that the application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that since, under Section 156(3), no direction can be given to the CBI to register an FIR and conduct investigation, the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cannot monitor the investigation.

"This Court considers that this observation of the learned MM may not be in accordance with the law. It is correct that learned MM cannot direct the CBI to the registration of the FIR. However, once the CBI has registered the case and conducting an investigation, the concerned Court of learned MM will have all the power to monitor the investigation in accordance with the law and established principles as laid down by the judgments of the constitutional bench," the High court said.

This petition was filed by the complainant/petitioner challenging the order of September 20, 2024 passed by the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi in whereby the request for change of the case IO for proper investigation by CBI and appointing an officer not below the rank of Inspector General was dismissed.

Advocate Abhijit Anand, counsel for the petitioner submits that IO has not conducted a free and fair investigation, which is a fundamental right of the petitioner.

He also submitted that even the directions of the Division Bench of this court had not been followed. It was further submitted that even the building site plan has not been seized, nor has the CCTV Footage been seized.

The counsel also invited the attention of various deficiencies in the investigation. He submitted that since the investigation is not being conducted in a free and fair manner, the investigation officer may be changed.

On the other hand, the CBI stated by the CBI that the investigation was done in a free and fair manner by following due process of law. The investigation is already being monitored by the Secretary, CVC, pursuant to the Directions of the Division Bench of this Court.

It was also stated that the CBI has already submitted two status reports in sealed cover containing the developments of the investigation before the Division Bench.

It was further submitted that the CBI has an established system of thorough supervision and close monitoring of investigation of cases by senior level officers and the investigation of this Case is also being closely monitored by senior officers of CBI. (ANI)