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 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

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed

28 September 2024 10:32 AM

By: sayum


Supreme Court of India in P. Srinivasan v. Peta Venkamma alias Peta Venkatamma & Ors., Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 302 of 2024, addressed a petition seeking the transfer of a criminal case pending in the Court of IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Nellore (Andhra Pradesh) to the Saket Court in New Delhi. The petitioner, P. Srinivasan, sought the transfer due to alleged failures in the investigation of a fraud case relating to property ownership. The Supreme Court, instead of transferring the case, ordered a fresh investigation by a new investigating officer, citing procedural lapses and contradictions in the reports submitted by the local police.

The dispute arose over ownership of Survey No. 212/2 in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, with the petitioner, P. Srinivasan, claiming that his father had purchased the land in 1972. However, subsequent documents and sales deeds led to conflicts over the property. Srinivasan filed C.F. No. 2842/2018 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 190 Cr.P.C., seeking the registration of a criminal case against 19 accused persons for alleged fraud. Based on the court’s directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an FIR was registered as FIR No. 244/2019, with allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under Sections 416, 419, 420, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, and 474 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

Despite the registration of the FIR, the petitioner contended that the Nellore Rural Police Station had failed to conduct any meaningful investigation, prompting him to file multiple applications and protest petitions. These petitions were returned by the court, citing procedural issues, leading Srinivasan to seek the transfer of the case to New Delhi, where he had shifted as a practicing advocate.

The Supreme Court noted significant procedural irregularities in the investigation process. The local police, in their submissions to the Andhra Pradesh High Court, claimed that a Final Report was filed on December 8, 2021, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.. However, when the IVth Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Nellore reviewed the case records, they found no evidence of such a report being submitted.

“Despite taking a stand before the High Court that the Closure Report has been filed, the SHO, Nellore Rural Police Station has not resubmitted any report.” [Para 9]

The Magistrate’s report highlighted that there was no record of the final report being filed either on December 8, 2021 or when it was allegedly re-submitted on September 18, 2023. These discrepancies led the Court to conclude that the local police had failed to perform their duties under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

The Supreme Court emphasized the failure of the investigating officer to conduct a thorough investigation. Despite multiple directions from the judicial authorities, no substantial progress had been made in the case, and protest petitions filed by the petitioner were repeatedly returned by the magistrate due to the absence of a final report.

Although the petitioner sought the transfer of the case to New Delhi, the Supreme Court found that the core issue was the failure of the investigation and not the location of the trial. Given the contradictory reports and procedural lapses, the Court focused on ensuring a proper investigation rather than transferring the case.

 

Fresh Investigation by New Investigating Officer: The Court directed that the investigation into FIR No. 244/2019 be assigned to a new investigating officer other than the one previously handling the case. The new officer must complete the investigation and file a final report within three months.

“The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nellore is directed to entrust the investigation of FIR No. 244/2019 to a new Investigating Officer… The investigation shall be carried out and taken to its logical conclusion within three months.” [Para 10(i), (ii)]

Nullification of Previous Final Report: The alleged final report dated December 8, 2021, which was claimed to have been submitted by the local police, was declared non-est (null and void) by the Court. The report was found to have no legal bearing on the fresh investigation.

“The alleged report dated 08.12.2021 is declared non-est and it will have no bearing on the fresh investigation.” [Para 10(iii)]

No Transfer of Proceedings: The Court declined the petitioner’s request to transfer the proceedings to New Delhi, as the focus was now on ensuring a fair investigation at the local level. The Court held that with the new directions for a fresh investigation, there was no need for a transfer.

“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 decision to order a fresh investigation reflects its commitment to ensuring that procedural lapses do not obstruct the course of justice. By nullifying the contradictory reports and assigning a new investigating officer, the Court aimed to resolve the long-standing dispute in an efficient and transparent manner. The ruling also underscores the judiciary’s oversight in ensuring accountability in criminal investigations.

Date of Decision: September 11, 2024

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

Latest Legal News