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Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court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

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.

Similar News