Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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.

Latest Legal News