Illegal Re-Investigation and Influence of Accused with Police Officials Shocking – Madras High Court Quashes Suo Motu Further Investigation
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court today quashed the order for a fresh investigation in the Coimbatore CCTV privacy violation case, terming the initial move for further investigation as a ‘million-dollar question’ that remained unanswered.
The court addressed the legality of ordering a fresh investigation after the final report in a case was filed. The crux of the judgment lay in determining whether the first respondent (Director General of Police, Tamilnadu) had the authority to order a re-investigation and transfer the case from the fourth respondent (Inspector of Police, C-2, Race Course PS, Coimbatore City) to the fifth respondent (Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Coimbatore).
The case originated from a complaint regarding the unauthorized installation of CCTV cameras in a women’s restroom within a private company’s premises. The initial investigation led to a final report filed by the fourth respondent. Subsequently, the first respondent ordered a transfer and further investigation into the case, leading to a new FIR and final report by the fifth respondent, suggesting the initial FIR as a mistake of fact.
The court heavily scrutinized the procedural aspects. It was noted that further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is permissible only when new evidence emerges, not for a complete re-investigation or a fresh investigation, which only a court can order. The judgment referenced several Supreme Court rulings, underscoring the principles of a fair and just investigation.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that the first respondent’s order for further investigation lacked basis and transparency. It was highlighted that the subsequent investigation did not uncover any new evidence but merely reiterated the previous findings under a different section of the Cr.P.C.
The High Court set aside the order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the first respondent for further investigation, deeming it unauthorized and without any fresh evidence. Consequently, the final report dated 06.01.2023 submitted by the fifth respondent in the re-registered FIR was quashed. The court directed the trial to proceed based on the initial final report filed by the fourth respondent.
Date of Decision: 15th February 2024
Lakshmipathy VS The State
