Madras High Court: In a criminal original petition filed under Section of (‘CrPC’) to call for the records of the final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, and for a consequential direction to transfer the investigation to Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (‘CBCID’) to conduct a de novo investigation and to file a final report, N. Anand Venkatesh, J. ordered a de novo investigation into a case after the Investigation Officer disclosed that she had not conducted the investigation and that her signature on the final report had been forged. Further, the Court transferred the investigation from the Inspector of Police to the CBCID.
A case was registered on the complaint by the petitioner against the accused persons for offences under Sections , and of the (‘IPC’). The petitioner had a grievance right from the beginning that the investigation was not properly conducted. However, the police report came to be filed before the Court below. Cognizance was taken for offences under Sections , and of . After the examination of the investigation officer, the petitioner found that the entire case was a farce and therefore approached this Court by filing the present petition to set aside the final report and to order a de novo investigation.
The Court remarked that this case in hand is quite unprecedented where the investigation officer gets into the witness box and states that she has not conducted the investigation and that someone has forged her signature in the final report. This only means that the investigation has not taken place in this case and all the so-called statements have been fabricated, and the entire criminal proceedings have become farcical.
The Court reiterated that the power of this Court to order a reinvestigation should not be exercised in a casual manner and only in very rare cases, de novo investigation can be ordered. This is since de novo investigation completely wipes off the earlier investigation and report.
The Court observed that the case at hand necessitated a reinvestigation to be ordered by the Court. It directed that the reinvestigation should not be limited solely to the issue involved in the case but should also seek to uncover who prepared the earlier police report and who forged the signature of the purported investigating officer. Highlighting the gravity of the matter, the Court emphasized that these serious allegations must be thoroughly probed during the reinvestigation. Furthermore, it stated that if the truth is uncovered, independent proceedings should also be initiated in connection with the findings.
The Court, considering the findings and discussions, quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate. It ordered the transfer of the investigation from the Inspector of Police to the CBCID. The Inspector of Police was directed to hand over the complete case diary to the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order.
The Court instructed the Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, to assign an officer based in Tiruchirappalli to reinvestigate the case in accordance with the Court’s observations. Further, the reinvestigation is to be concluded, and a final report filed within three months thereafter. Following the submission of the final report, the trial Court was directed to proceed with the case and ensure its expeditious disposal.
[P. Venkatesan v. Superintendent of Police, Crl. O.P.(MD) No.768 of 2023, decided on 18-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Advocate G.Karuppasamy Pandian
For Respondent: Government Advocate B. Thanga Aravindh
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .