The Director General of Police (DGP) is not empowered to transfer the investigation of a case from one agency to another after the first agency had completed the investigation and filed a final report before the court concerned, the Madras High Court has held.
Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan held so while dealing with a case booked under Section 354C (voyeurism) of the Indian Penal Code against two individuals accused of fixing a CCTV camera facing the house of the managing director of Sri Krishna Hi-Tech Management Solutions Private Limited in Coimbatore city.
The judge pointed out the Race Course police in Coimbatore city had registered a First Information Report under Section 354C of IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act in 2019.
After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet and it was taken cognisance by a judicial magistrate. However, suddenly on June 23, 2021, the then DGP transferred the case from the city police to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID).
The DGP also nominated a particular investigating officer in the CB-CID to conduct further investigation. The new investigating officer sought the permission of the Magistrate to conduct further investigation but it was denied by a detailed judicial order passed on July 8, 2021.
Despite such specific denial of permission for further investigation, the CB-CID conducted a fresh investigation into the case by registering a separate crime number and filed a negative final report before the Magistrate on January 6, 2023 for closing the case by terming it as “a mistake of fact.”
Expressing shock over such developments, Justice Ilanthiraiyan quashed the negative final report filed by the CB-CID and directed the Judicial Magistrate to proceed on the basis of the previous final report filed by the Race Course police. He also ordered completion of trial within three months.
“This court is shocked to see that the first respondent (DGP) ordered for further investigation by transferring the investigation from the file of the fourth respondent to the file of the fifth respondent without even referring to the final report... It shows the influence of the accused with the police officials,” the judge wrote.
He also pointed out that the law does not permit either the Magistrate or the DGP to order a de novo investigation in any case. They could only order further investigation that too only if some additional materials had emerged in a particular case after the filing of the final report.
In the present case, the CB-CID had conducted a fresh investigation after the filing of the charge sheet by the city police and such a course could not be permitted, the judge added.
