"Serious Issue": Madras HC Orders Re-Investigation Of Case After Forged IO Signature Row
The Madras High Court has ordered the re-investigation of a case after it was revealed that the Investigation Officer didn't investigate the case and her signatures were forged.
The Court was considering a petition filed challenging the proceedings in the said case and its transfer to CBCID in order to conduct a de novo investigation and to file a final report.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh observed, "The case in hand requires such reinvestigation to be ordered by this Court. Such reinvestigation should not confine itself to the issue involved in the case but also to ascertain as to who prepared the earlier police report and who had forged the signature of the so called investigation officer. This is a serious issue which must also be investigated in the course of reinvestigation. If the truth comes to light, independent proceedings must be initiated in that regard also."
The petitioner had the grievance right from the beginning that the investigation was not properly conducted. However, the police report came to be filed. Cognizance was taken for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC witnesses were also examined and ultimately. During it, the IO revealed that her signature on the investigation report were forged.
The petitioner thus concluded that the entire case is a farce and therefore approached the Court by filing the present petition to set-aside the final report and to order for a de novo investigation.
The Court called the case 'unprecedented' and hinted that the investigation might have not taken place in the first place.
"The case in hand is quite unprecedented where the investigation officer gets into the witness box and states that she has not conducted the investigation and that some one has forged her signature in the final report. This only means that the investigation has not taken place in this case and all the so called statements have been fabricated and the entire criminal proceedings has become farcical. The deposition of investigation officer was once again reiterated when the investigation officer repeated the same fact before this Court also," the court observed.
The Court was of the view that the case makes for a 'very rare' occasion to order de novo investigation.
The Petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: P.Venkatesan vs. The Superintendent of Police
Click here to read/ download Order:
