Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.S. CHAUHAN, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Prof. K.V. Rajendran - Appellant
Versus
Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1167 of 2013
Decided On : 21-08-2013
(1992) 1 SCC 397; AIR 1994 SC 38; AIR 1994 SC 1023; AIR 1996 SC 3386; AIR 1997 SC 314; AIR 2011 SC 3168; (2011) 13 SCC 329; AIR 2012 SC 364; (2010) 2 SCC 200; AIR 2010 SC 1476; AIR 2011 SC 1254; AIR 2008 SC 907 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This case pertains to transfer of a case from CB CID to CBI.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment does not warrant interference.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case concerns the legal principles governing the transfer of investigation from a State investigating agency to the CBI, emphasizing that such transfers are to be made only in rare and exceptional circumstances (!) (!) .
The court recognizes that the power to transfer investigations should be exercised cautiously, particularly when the investigation involves high officials, or there are allegations of bias, malafide conduct, or lack of credibility in the initial investigation (!) (!) .
The legal framework permits transfer of investigation even after the final report has been filed, provided there are sufficient subsequent developments or reasons to justify such a transfer (!) .
The court highlights that a long delay, such as over 15 years, and the transfer of officials during this period do not automatically warrant transferring the investigation, especially when the investigation has been conducted thoroughly and the final report has been filed (!) (!) .
The decision to transfer investigation involves careful consideration of whether there are any new, substantial reasons that could undermine the credibility or fairness of the ongoing investigation (!) .
The court emphasizes that previous orders and liberties granted to the petitioner to seek transfer remain valid, and that the petitioner can still approach the court if new material or circumstances justify such a request (!) .
Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that no sufficient reason existed to interfere with the earlier judgment, given that the investigation was conducted properly and no new circumstances had emerged to warrant a transfer to the CBI (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.O.P. No. 9639 of 2011, by way of which the High Court has rejected the prayer of the appellant to transfer the investigation of his case/complaint to Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the `CBI’).
2. The case has a chequered history as the matter has moved from the court of the Magistrate to this Court time and again. Facts and circumstances necessary to adjudicate upon the controversy involved herein are that:
A. The appellant, who is an Associate Professor in Physics in the Presidency College, Chennai, went to his village on 26.8.1998. At about 11.00 P.M., approximately ten people headed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter referred to as the `RDO’), forcibly took him in a government jeep and brought him to the Taluk office and enquired about why he had given a false complaint regarding the smuggling of teakwood in that area. The then RDO and other officials treated him with utmost cruelty and caused severe injuries all over his body and then obtained his signatures on blank papers which were filled up as directed by the then RDO. On the next day, he was handed over to the local Police Inspector along with the statement purported to have been written by the officials concerned.
B. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on 27.8.1998 at 10.30 A.M. and he was remanded to judicial custody. His request to the Judicial Magistrate in regard to medical examination of the injuries which had been caused to him was rejected. The appellant was kept in Sub Jail, Poraiyar, wherein he was treated by the jail doctor on 28.8.1998. On being released on bail, the appellant got treatment of his injuries in a private hospital.
C. The appellant filed a complaint against the said RDO and other officials. The said complaint was also sent to the office of Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State, the Director General of Police and other officials, alleging the brutal torture caused to him by the then RDO. The case was entrusted for investigation to Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID, Nagapattinam. A confidential report was forwarded to higher officials by the said DSP in this regard. However, no progress could be made in the investigation and no case was registered in respect of the complaint of the appellant.
D. The appellant approached the High Court of Madras by filing Crl. O.P. No. 19352/1998 with the prayer to direct the registration of First Information Report (FIR) based on his complaint. In view of the fact that a confidential report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID revealed that the preliminary enquiry was conducted in a proper manner, the High Court did not transfer the investigation to CBI, however, the petition was allowed vide order dated 1.3.2001 issuing the direction to register a case.
E. The DSP, SBCID filed an application i.e. Crl.M.P. No. 3713/2001 before the High Court in the disposed of case i.e. Crl.O.P. No. 19352/1998 stating that there was no post of DSP, SBCID on the date of the order as the same had been abolished, so proper directions needed to be issued. In the meanwhile, the appellant also filed another petition to transfer the case to CBI. Both the said applications were heard together and the order dated 1.10.2004 was passed modifying the earlier order dated 1.3.2001 for transferring the investigation to CBI.
F. Aggrieved, the DSP, SBCID, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2008 before this Court. The said criminal appeal was disposed of by this Court vide a detailed judgment and order dated 2.9.2008. It was observed that by the first order dated 1.3.2001, the High Court had declined to handover the investigation to CBI, therefore, it was not proper for the High Court to pass a fresh order in a petition that had been disposed of, directing again the investigation to be made by the CBI. This view was taken
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
