Introduction:

In P. Dakshinamurthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh (WP No. 21807 of 2026) [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 279], the Madhya Pradesh High Court dealt with a writ petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged unnatural death of a young woman advocate who died within a few months of her marriage under suspicious circumstances. The petition was heard by Justice Himanshu Joshi, who permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to submit a fresh and properly constituted representation before the competent authority. The Court further directed that if such a representation is filed within seven working days, the concerned authority shall consider and decide it expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

The case arose from the unfortunate death of the petitioner’s daughter, who, according to the father’s allegations, died under suspicious circumstances within three months of her marriage. The petitioner alleged that the death was not accidental but was the result of persistent dowry harassment at the hands of her husband and in-laws. He sought an independent investigation by the CBI, asserting that the local authorities had failed to conduct a fair and effective inquiry despite repeated complaints.

According to the petition, the deceased, a practising advocate, married on 2 March 2025 in Tamil Nadu according to Hindu customs and traditions. The father alleged that soon after the marriage, the husband and his family repeatedly demanded dowry, compelling the bride’s family to fulfil several demands to maintain matrimonial harmony. Despite these efforts, the alleged harassment continued.

The petitioner stated that he later received information from his son-in-law that his daughter had suffered injuries after allegedly slipping and falling in the bathroom while washing her face at around 9:30 p.m. However, the father questioned this explanation, pointing to several circumstances that, according to him, created serious suspicion regarding the true cause of death. He particularly alleged that although his son-in-law was a medical practitioner, he failed to immediately shift the deceased to a hospital, a circumstance which, according to the petitioner, required a thorough investigation.

The petitioner further claimed that despite submitting a detailed complaint before the Station House Officer at Jabalpur, no meaningful action was initiated. His attempt to obtain medical records through the Right to Information Act also failed, as the hospital allegedly refused to provide the records on the ground that he was not the “next of kin” of the deceased. These developments ultimately prompted the filing of the writ petition before the High Court seeking a CBI investigation.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner argued that the death of his daughter was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and could not be accepted as a simple accidental fall. He submitted that the deceased had died within a very short period of her marriage and that the surrounding facts pointed towards continuous dowry-related harassment by her matrimonial family. According to the petitioner, repeated demands for dowry had been made after the marriage and several of those demands had already been fulfilled by the bride’s family in the hope of preserving the marital relationship.

The petitioner expressed serious doubts regarding the explanation furnished by the husband that the deceased had merely slipped in the bathroom while washing her face. It was contended that this version appeared improbable in light of the surrounding circumstances. Particular emphasis was placed on the allegation that despite being a qualified doctor, the husband did not immediately ensure that the deceased received urgent medical treatment. The petitioner argued that this conduct warranted closer scrutiny by an independent investigating agency.

It was further submitted that the local police had failed to respond effectively despite receiving a written complaint. According to the petitioner, the inaction of the investigating authorities undermined his confidence in the fairness of the local investigation, thereby justifying the request for a CBI inquiry.

The petitioner also referred to the rejection of his RTI application seeking medical records relating to his daughter’s treatment. He argued that denial of access to those records further prevented him from understanding the true circumstances surrounding the death and reinforced the need for an independent investigation.

During the hearing, however, counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition while requesting liberty to submit a fresh and properly constituted representation before the competent authority so that the matter could first be examined administratively.

The State opposed the prayer for a CBI investigation. While the order does not record detailed submissions on behalf of the respondents, it is evident that the matter ultimately proceeded on the petitioner’s request for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to pursue the available administrative remedy by filing a fresh representation before the competent authority.

Court’s Judgment:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court did not examine the merits of the allegations concerning the alleged dowry death or the request for a CBI investigation. Instead, the Court confined itself to the limited prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel seeking withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to submit a fresh representation before the appropriate authority.

Justice Himanshu Joshi accepted the request and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn while granting the liberty sought. The Court observed that the petitioner would be entitled to submit a fresh and properly constituted representation before the competent authority or respondent within seven working days from the date of the order.

Recognising the seriousness of the allegations raised by the petitioner, the Court ensured that the representation would not remain unattended. It directed that upon receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of the order, the concerned authority should consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks.

The Court further directed that before taking any decision, the competent authority should provide an opportunity of hearing to both sides. This direction reflects adherence to the principles of natural justice, ensuring that all affected parties are afforded an adequate opportunity to present their respective cases before any administrative decision is taken.

The order demonstrates the High Court’s approach of encouraging exhaustion of available statutory and administrative remedies before invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, particularly in matters where factual controversies require examination by competent authorities in the first instance.

Importantly, the Court neither accepted nor rejected the petitioner’s allegations relating to dowry harassment, suspicious death or deficiencies in the police investigation. Likewise, it did not express any opinion regarding the necessity of a CBI investigation. All factual issues were consciously left open to be considered by the competent authority while examining the representation submitted by the petitioner.

The Court’s decision also highlights the distinction between judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and administrative decision-making. Where the petitioner himself seeks permission to pursue an alternative remedy, constitutional courts may permit withdrawal of proceedings while simultaneously safeguarding the petitioner’s rights by prescribing a time-bound mechanism for consideration of the grievance.

The direction fixing a four-week timeline reflects the judiciary’s concern that allegations involving the unnatural death of a married woman should receive prompt administrative attention. Such timelines help ensure that complaints involving serious allegations are not delayed indefinitely and that the competent authorities discharge their statutory responsibilities within a reasonable period.

The order also underscores the importance of procedural fairness in sensitive cases involving allegations of dowry harassment and unnatural death. By directing that both parties be heard before any decision is taken, the High Court balanced the petitioner’s right to have his grievance examined with the respondents’ entitlement to present their own explanation.

Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority. The Court directed that if such representation is filed within seven working days, it shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Although the High Court refrained from examining the substantive allegations, its order ensures that the petitioner’s grievance receives formal consideration within a defined timeframe. The judgment reflects the Court’s preference for allowing statutory authorities to address factual disputes at the first instance while preserving the petitioner’s right to seek further legal remedies, if necessary, depending upon the outcome of the representation.