Investigation Can Be Transferred Even After Filing Of Final Report If It Was Not Conducted Properly: Madras High Court

“As already stated, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that, even after the filing of the final report, in order to complete justice and in exceptional circumstances, and in order to prevent a miscarriage of criminal justice, if the Court considers it necessary, it may direct further investigation or investigation de novo where the case presents exceptional circumstances,” the court observed.

Justice S Alli observed that a chargesheet is only a product of the investigation and when the investigation itself was tainted, the chargesheet would be vitiated in law. The court added that such a tainted chargesheet violates the fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

“A charge sheet is the product of an investigation. When such an investigation is tainted and biased, the charge sheet becomes vitiated in law and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. This infringes upon the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A fair investigation is integral to a fair trial,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by a woman seeking to set aside the final report filed by the police and to order further investigation by the CBCID or any specialised agency. The woman had filed a complaint against her husband and family alleging that they had forged her signature to transfer 4500 shares that were in her name to a third party and to remove her from the company's directorship.

The woman claimed that the investigation was neither fair, comprehensive, nor objective. It was submitted that the chargesheet had been filed in haste and without conducting a proper and fair investigation. It was alleged that the investigating officer had failed to collect essential company records, digital correspondence, or witness statements to verify the genuineness of the transfer of shares and to ascertain whether the transfer of shares was lawfully effected or not.

The petitioner further pointed out that the officer had not made any efforts to ascertain whether the resignation letter, allegedly given by the petitioner, was genuine. The woman argued that the non-investigation of the transfer of shares was to protect the accused. The woman also argued that the relevant company records, Minutes of the Board Meeting, statutory registers, share transfer records, and other connected records have not been collected and examined in the manner required for ascertaining the genuineness of the records produced.

The woman had thus sought to quash the chargesheet and conduct fresh investigation by an independent agency.

The state, on the other hand, submitted that the investigation in the present case had been completed and the final report had also been filed. Thus, the state argued that the investigation could not be transferred to some other agency.

The court noted that though the manner of investigation is usually within the domain of the investigating officer and the courts do not ordinarily substitute their own view for that of the investigating officer, in the present case, the woman had alleged that there was a failure to ascertain the allegations made in the complaint.

The court noted that the infirmities pointed out by the woman with respect to the manner of investigation were substantial and would affect the core allegations. The court thus opined that the investigation was not conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

Thus, the court was inclined to allow the plea and quashed the chargesheet. The court also transferred the investigation to the CBCID and directed the police to hand over all the case records and other materials to the agency for a free, fair, and impartial inquiry, independent of media, political influence, or local pressure.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Subramanian

Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. R. S. Indira, Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. V. Srimathi