Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

FIR Quashing | Police Lack Authority to Reinvestigate After a Significant Lapse of Time Without New Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati, led by Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, quashed FIR No. 72 of 2016, citing a lack of police authority for reinvestigation without new evidence, thereby preventing what it termed as "illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution."

The court's decision addressed the critical legal issue of the police's jurisdiction and authority to reinvestigate a matter that had previously been investigated and filed. It centered on the petitioners' plea for a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR concerning the same allegations addressed in an earlier FIR.

The petition stemmed from allegations following the suicide of the third respondent's father, leading to the initial FIR No. 378 of 2015. Despite the closure of the initial investigation, a subsequent FIR (No. 72 of 2016) was lodged against the petitioners after eight months, purportedly to pressure the petitioners over financial disputes and avoid obligations. The petitioners contended that this constituted double jeopardy and an abuse of the legal process aimed at harassment.

Jurisdiction and Authority for Reinvestigation: The court critically analyzed whether the police had the jurisdiction to launch a reinvestigation in the absence of new evidence. Drawing upon precedent, notably the decision in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, it emphasized that police reinvestigation without fresh evidence contravenes legal protocols and amounts to an abuse of power.

Double Jeopardy and Civil Nature of Dispute: The judgment highlighted that the issues between the parties were primarily civil and had been previously adjudicated within the criminal framework, which does not warrant a subsequent criminal probe or proceedings.

Rights under Articles 21 and 22: Justice Rao pointed out the constitutional implications of the police's actions, particularly how an unnecessary and unwarranted reinvestigation infringes on the fundamental rights of the individuals involved.

The High Court conclusively ordered the quashing of FIR No. 72 of 2016 and all related criminal proceedings against the petitioners. It declared the reinvestigation by the police as devoid of any legal standing, thereby upholding the rights of the petitioners under the Constitution.

Date of Decision: March 28, 2024

Medapati Venkata Reddy @ Bulli Reddy, and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Similar News