Manufacturing Unit Must Be in Uttar Pradesh to Bid for Child Nutrition Tender — Delhi High Court Upholds NAFED's Geographical Eligibility Condition for Rs. 2,768 Crore ICDS Supply Contract 800-Strong Mob Unleashed Against ED Officials During PDS Scam Search — Calcutta High Court Refuses Bail, Cites Witness Intimidation Threat Section 29A Cannot Reach Into a Special Statutory Code: Bombay High Court Rules Time Limit Provisions of Arbitration Act Inapplicable to Highway Land Acquisition Arbitrations Mala Fides Are ‘Easily Alleged but Hardly Proved’: Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash Income Tax Summons” Child Witness Testimony Can Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration If Reliable: Allahabad High Court FD Deposited With Bank Does Not Make Corporate a 'Commercial Purpose' User — But Fraud Allegations Can't Be Tried in Consumer Forum: Supreme Court Movie Flopped, But That's Not Cheating — Supreme Court Quashes Section 420 IPC Against Film Producer Who Borrowed Investment Money on Profit-Sharing Promise No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise Charge Sheet Served On Last Day of Service, Punishment After Retirement: Supreme Court Upholds Pay Reduction of Bank Officer Post-Superannuation IAS Officer Convicted for Contempt Gets Fine Waived on Apology, But Gets Stricture: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashing Cannot Become a Mini-Trial: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Halt Rape Case Linked to ‘Exorcism’ and Blackmail NDPS | Prosecution Cannot Pin Cannabis Cultivation on One Co-Owner Without Proof: Bombay HC Acquits Seventeen Years of Waiting is Itself Punishment: Calcutta High Court Balances Conviction with Constitutional Compassion Bigger Truck, Damaged Motorcycle — But Insurance Company Cannot Apportion Negligence Without Examining the Driver: Gujarat High Court Tenant Cannot Bequeath Tenancy Rights by Will Under HP Tenancy Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court A Registered Sale Deed And Mutation Cannot Override Fundamental Principle That Vendor Cannot Convey Better Title Than He Possesses: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Recovery of the Dead Body Is Not an Absolute Requirement for Conviction: Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Supplemental Agreement Signed Under Threat Of Contract Termination Cannot Negate Contractor's Claim For Extra Expenditure: Kerala High Court No Bail Without Hearing the Victim: Kerala High Court Declares Orders Passed in Violation of SC/ST Act ‘Non-Est’ False Promise, Pregnancy, and Denial of Paternity: Telangana High Court Grants Bail Amid Pending DNA Evidence

Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe

23 September 2024 4:54 PM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India, in P. Srinivasan v. Peta Venkamma alias Peta Venkatamma & Ors., dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of a criminal case from Nellore, Andhra Pradesh to Saket Court, New Delhi. The Court found that relocation of the petitioner to Delhi alone did not constitute sufficient grounds for a transfer. Instead, the Court highlighted serious discrepancies in the investigation by the Nellore police and ordered the appointment of a new Investigating Officer to conduct a fresh probe within three months.

The petitioner, P. Srinivasan, filed C.F No. 2842/2018 under Section 200 read with Section 190 Cr.P.C., seeking criminal action against 19 accused individuals. Pursuant to this, the police registered FIR No. 244/2019 under various sections of the IPC, including Sections 416, 418, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 474 read with Section 34 IPC.

The petitioner sought a transfer of the case from Nellore to New Delhi, arguing that despite the filing of the FIR, no substantive investigation had taken place, and due to his relocation to Delhi, it would be more convenient for him to pursue the case in New Delhi. The Nellore police claimed to have filed a final report on December 8, 2021, but there was no official record of this submission, leading to a series of contradictory statements by the police before different courts.

Relocation as a Ground for Transfer: The petitioner’s principal argument was that, after moving to Delhi, it was inconvenient for him to follow up on the proceedings in Nellore. However, the Court held that relocation alone is not a sufficient ground for the transfer of proceedings.

Failure of Local Police in Investigation: Despite the police claiming to have filed a final report, it was found that no such report had been submitted to the Judicial Magistrate, as corroborated by court records. The Supreme Court criticized the police's contradictory statements made before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Judicial Magistrate of Nellore.

The Court noted, “The purported final report dated 08.12.2021 is declared non-est, as there is no record of its filing, and contradictory stands have been taken by the police in different fora.” [Para 9].

The Court dismissed the transfer petition, emphasizing that transferring proceedings solely based on the petitioner’s convenience was not justified. However, acknowledging the failure of the local police in properly investigating the case, the Court took an unusual step of expanding the scope of the transfer petition to address the investigative shortcomings.

The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore to appoint a new Investigating Officer to conduct a fresh investigation into FIR No. 244/2019 and complete it within three months. The Court declared the December 8, 2021 final report as "non-est" and of no legal effect, instructing that a new report must be filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C following the fresh investigation.

"In light of these directions, we do not deem it necessary to entertain the petitioner’s prayer for transfer of these proceedings." [Para 11].

The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of thorough and transparent police investigations. The dismissal of the transfer petition, coupled with an order for fresh investigation, sets a precedent that relocation of the petitioner alone cannot justify the transfer of criminal proceedings when judicial oversight can address investigatory failings.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

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

Latest Legal News