IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

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