The Court can order de novo investigation in exceptional circumstances to ensure fair investigation and prevent miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to direct the respondent to re-investigate the case in C.C.No. 33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur.)

This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking for reinvestigation of the case pending in C.C.No.33 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur.

2. The case of the petitioner is stated as hereunder :

(i) The petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, lodged a complaint before the second respondent to the effect that on 13.2.2013, one Mr.Saravanan executed a mortgage deed dated 13.2.2008 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh. As the said Mr.Saravanan was not able to replay the amount, he executed another mortgage deed dated 24.11.2008 after cancelling the earlier mortgage deed dated 13.2.2008. Further, due to his financial crunch, the said Mr.Saravanan executed a power of attorney dated 16.4.2009 in favour of the mother of the petitioner and based on that, a sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner on 24.6.2010 and it was registered as Doc. No.3026 of 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(ii) After the execution of the said sale deed, the said Mr.Saravanan cancelled the said power of attorney document dated 16.4.2009 and executed a fresh power of attorney document dated 17.12.2012 and based on that, subsequent sale deeds were created. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that the accused persons numbering seven committed offences under Sections 143, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) Based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a first information report came be registered by the third respondent in Cr.No.557 of 2013.

(iv) The first grievance raised by the petitioner is that the final report was filed nearly after eight years before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur only on 01.3.2022. The petitioner, on going through the final report and the statements recorded, which were filed along with the same, came to understand that the entire investigation had been done in a slipshod manner and if the proceedings are allowed to go on based upon the present final report, it will end up in acquittal of all the accused persons. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court seeking for reinvestigation of the case.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

4. This Court had the advantage of going through the entire materials and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

5. The case in hand is a sample as to how an investigation should not be done by the Police. The statements and other materials filed along with the final report virtually demolish the final report and if such proceedings are allowed to be continued, it will tantamount to mockery on the criminal justice system.

6. The first information report was registered on 29.11.2013. Once the first information report came to be registered, the investigation under Chapter-XII commences. It is only in the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses are recorded by the Police under Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, the Code). Therefore, considering the scheme of the Code, if at all the statements are recorded from the witnesses, it can happen only after 29.11.2013. However, to the shock and surprise of this Court, it is found that most of the witnesses have been examined on 30.4.2013 and some of the witnesses have been examined on 02.5.2013. It means that the witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded even before the first information report was registered in this case.

7. There is yet another infirmity prima facie seen in this case. This is a case involving cheating and forgery of documents. Under such circumstances, it is