Jiah Khan’s death: Will not allow Rabia Khan to continue to repeat proceedings, says HC

The Bombay high court has pulled up Rabia Khan, mother of actor Jiah Khan, for misusing the judicial machinery, and said she is trying to get an order which is in line with her claim that the death of her daughter was not suicide but homicide.

A division bench of justice A S Gadkari and justice Milind Jadhav rejected her petition, and was also intending to impose a fine on Rabia but refrained after her lawyer pleaded against it.

The order was passed on September 12, but it was available on Tuesday.

The judgement said the petitioner’s request to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to reinvestigate the case by forming a special investigation team or transferring the probe to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the US, based on the suggestions of a UK-based law firm, was unreasonable.

Despite the central agency investigating the case and placing a report confirming that Jiah’s death was suicide and not homicide, the repeated applications by the petitioner in various courts were only intended to protract the trial, the HC said.

The bench said the law firm SCARMAN’s report attempts to deliver a verdict even before the trial is over. “At places, there are adverse comments on the judgment and orders delivered by this court which are neither appreciated nor deprecated by us. The basis of the report is the belief of Jiah Khan’s family that her death continues to be erroneously categorised as suicide.”

It wondered whether the authors did understand the difference between investigation and trial. “Prima facie, it appears that they believe the trial has already been completed. We are also lost to understand that SCARMAN has given its report based on the evidence relating to the victim’s death when investigation is over and the trial has commenced.”

About the request to hand over the probe to the FBI, the HC said it failed to understand how it could issue a direction to an agency which was beyond its jurisdiction. “The entire approach of the petitioner appears to procure an order from this court, without facing trial, that the death of victim was homicide and not suicide. This kind of approach appears to circumvent the due process of law. This apart, once the trial has commenced, we do not understand how the petitioner can maintain such objections especially in light of the orders passed by this court and this court having found that the investigation carried out by respondent no 2 – the CBI – has been appropriate.”

The court said during the trial if the lower court found any evidence to be investigated further it could direct the police to do so but the petitioner was trying to preempt it.

“We strongly deprecate the repeated filing of proceedings by the petitioner for the same cause of action. Hence, we are inclined to award exemplary costs against the petitioner for filing the present plea which is nothing but a replication of the earlier proceedings filed [repeatedly] by the petitioner, despite this court giving a decisive ruling and the Supreme Court upholding it. The orders passed by the trial court, this court, and the SC speak for themselves,” the bench said in its order.

However, advocate Shekhar Jagtap for Rabia Khan pleaded against the penalty following which the HC accepted the request, and dismissed the petition.

After the police filed a chargesheet in 2013, Rabia Khan approached the trial court and sought reinvestigation by a central agency. The CBI filed a supplementary chargesheet in 2014 concluding that it was suicide and not homicide, and Suraj Pancholi, son of actor Aditya Pancholi, was guilty of abetment to suicide.

Not satisfied, Khan approached the HC which in 2017 ruled that the CBI investigation was thorough. She then approached the Supreme Court through a special leave petition in 2019, but in light of the HC order, the top court rejected it. Thereafter during the trial, Khan procured the report by SCARMAN.