LexPROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 199 PROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2013) AUGUST 21, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] INVEST/GA TION: Transfer of investigation to CBI - ·Held: Supreme Court A B c or High Court can exercise its constitutional powers for transferring an investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like 0 CBI only in rare and exceptional cases - Where the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should not reopen the investigation and it should be left open to the\court, where the charge-sheet has been filed, to proceed with the matter in accordance with Jaw - In the instant case, the Jacts and E circumstances do not present special features warranting transfer of investigation to CBI - Besides, the incident occurred 15 years back and final report uls 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted before the competent criminal court - It is open to the Magistrate to accept the final report or to reject F the same and to direct further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 136 and 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 173(2) and 173(8).. The appellant; an Associate Professor in a College, G filed a complaint against the Revenue Divisional Officer fRDO') and other officials alleging that on 26.8.1998, the said RDO and other persons brutally tortured him for making a complaint regarding the smuggling of teakwood 199 H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 9 S.C.R. A in that area and that on the following day, he was handed over to the local Police. Subsequently, he was remanded to judicial custody, and was released on bail. Howe_ver, no case was registered. The appellant then filed a criminal petition which was disposed of by the High B Court directing the transfer of investigation to CBI. In the SLP filed by the DSP, SBCID, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court giving liberty to the appellant to file a fresh criminal petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for transferring the investigation from the State police c authorities to CBI, depending upon subsequent events. The appellant was summoned by the DSP, SBCID on 7.7.2010 and again on 25.10.2010 and his statements were recorded. Being unsatisfied with the investigation conducted by the SBCID, the appellant filed another 0 criminal petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court or High Courts can exercise their Constitutional powers for transferring an E investigation from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI only in rare and exceptional cases, e.g. where high officials of State authorities are involved; the accusation itself is against the top officials of the investigating agency F thereby allowing them to influence the investigation, and further that it is so necessary to do justice and to instil confidence in the investigation or where the investigation is prima facie found to be tainted/biased. Where the investigation has already been completed and charge G sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should not reopen the investigation and it should be left open to the court, where the charge sheet has been filed, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. [para 6 and 10] [207-D-E; 209-B-D] H PROF. KV RAJENDRAN v. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 201 CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of A Democratic Rights, 2010 (2) SCR 979 =AIR 2010 SC 1476; Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, 2011 (3) SCR 597 = AIR 2008 SC 907; Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1254; Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1991 (3) Suppl. SCR 251 = (1992) 1 sec 397; R.S. B Sodhi v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 38; Punjab and Haryana Bar Association, Chandigarh through its Secretary v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 915 = AIR 1994 SC 1023; Vineet Narain & Ors., v. Union of India & Anr., 1996 (1) SCR 1053 =AIR 1996 SC 3386; Union of India & C Ors. v. Sushi/ Kumar Modi & Ors., 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 393 =AIR 1997 SC 314; Disha v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2011 (9) SCR 359 =AIR 2011 SC 3168; Rajender Singh Pathania & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.