IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute

27 September 2024 11:07 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India, in the case of P. Srinivasan v. Peta Venkamma alias Peta Venkatamma & Ors., addressed significant procedural lapses in the investigation of FIR No. 244/2019 regarding an alleged property fraud. The Court rejected the petitioner’s request to transfer the criminal case to a New Delhi court but ordered a fresh investigation by a new Investigating Officer, criticizing the local police for procedural failures.

The petitioner, P. Srinivasan, had filed C.F. No. 2842/2018 under Section 200 read with Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), accusing 19 persons of fraudulently claiming ownership over a disputed property in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh. This led to FIR No. 244/2019 being registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including forgery and cheating. However, Srinivasan alleged that the local police had not conducted a proper investigation, prompting him to file multiple applications and protest petitions.

The case involved long-standing property disputes between closely related parties. Although FIRs and complaints had been lodged, the police repeatedly failed to file proper status reports or charge sheets. The petitioner, having shifted to Delhi, sought to transfer the case to the District and Sessions Judge at Saket Court, New Delhi, citing convenience and lack of faith in the local police.

Non-filing of the Final Report: The petitioner argued that no proper investigation had been conducted, and the final report was either not filed or not recorded correctly by the Nellore police.

Contradictory Stands by Police: There was a significant discrepancy between the statements made by the police before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Nellore Judicial Magistrate regarding the submission of the final report.

Transfer of Proceedings: The petitioner’s request for the case to be transferred to New Delhi was premised on his recent relocation and concerns about local police inefficiency.

The Court noted severe procedural lapses, particularly in the police's handling of the final report. Despite claims that a closure report had been filed on December 8, 2021, the Nellore Magistrate confirmed that no such report had been received. Further, contradictory explanations were presented by the Station House Officer (SHO) before different judicial forums.

"The Local Police Has Failed to Perform Its Duties" - SC Criticizes the Conduct of the Investigation

Details of the Judgment: The Supreme Court, led by Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, made the following key rulings:

Investigation by a New Officer: The Court ordered that the investigation be handed over to a new Investigating Officer, replacing the current officer responsible for the investigation. The Court observed that the local police had "failed to perform its duties" as per the procedures outlined in the Cr.P.C.

 

Three-Month Deadline: The newly appointed Investigating Officer was directed to complete the investigation and file a report within three months.

Nullification of Previous Report: The Court declared the alleged final report dated December 8, 2021, as "non-est" (legally void), meaning it has no legal effect on the fresh investigation.

Dismissal of Transfer Petition: The petitioner’s request to transfer the case to New Delhi was denied, with the Court stating that given the fresh investigation, there was no need for a transfer at this stage.

The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of due process in criminal investigations, especially in cases involving alleged police negligence or inaction. By ordering a fresh investigation and nullifying the prior report, the Court reinforced the need for transparency and diligence in handling criminal cases. The petitioner's request for transfer was rejected, but the Court ensured that a fair investigation would be conducted under the supervision of a new officer.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

P. Srinivasan v. Peta Venkamma alias Peta Venkatamma & Ors.

Similar News