Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Salil Anupendra Chaturvedi, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the transfer of Shri Ramesh D. Khade, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State C.I.D., who was investigating a private complaint (No.1/2006) pending before the Special Judge (NDPS) at Mumbai. The petitioner sought reinstatement of Khade as investigating officer and a direction to complete the investigation within a stipulated period. The background includes earlier writ petitions: Writ Petition No.2921/2009 was disposed of on 5th December 2009 directing the State C.I.D. to investigate the case within six months; subsequent petitions challenging the appointment of a supervising officer were dismissed on 1st April 2010. The investigation was entrusted to Khade, but in December 2010, he was transferred. The petitioner argued that the transfer was malafide and intended to derail the investigation. The State contended that transfers are administrative decisions and the petitioner has no locus to challenge them. The court, per A.M. Khanwilkar and A.R. Joshi JJ., held that the transfer of an investigating officer is an administrative decision of the State and cannot be interfered with under Article 226 unless shown to be malafide or in violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner failed to establish malafides. The court dismissed the petition, noting that the investigation could continue under a new officer.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Investigating Officer - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Section 156(3) CrPC - The petitioner sought reinstatement of a transferred investigating officer in a private complaint under NDPS Act - The court held that the transfer of an investigating officer is an administrative decision of the State and cannot be interfered with unless shown to be malafide or in violation of statutory provisions - The petitioner has no right to insist that a particular officer continue as investigating officer (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer of an investigating officer during the pendency of investigation can be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the petitioner has a right to insist that a particular officer continue as investigating officer.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The transfer of the investigating officer is an administrative decision not subject to judicial review unless malafide or in violation of statutory provisions. No malafides established.
Law Points
- Transfer of investigating officer is an administrative decision
- not subject to judicial review unless malafide or in violation of statutory provisions
- Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Section 156(3) CrPC
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 147
Criminal Writ Petition No.132 of 2011
A.M. Khanwilkar, A.R. Joshi
Mr. Vikas Pahva with Mr. Ayaz Khan & Ms. Zehra Charania for Petitioner, Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. for State, Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. C.K. Pendse for interveners
Shri Salil Anupendra Chaturvedi
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging transfer of investigating officer in a private complaint under NDPS Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of transfer order of Shri Ramesh D. Khade, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and direction to reinstate him as investigating officer and complete investigation within a stipulated period.
Filing Reason
The investigating officer was transferred during pendency of investigation, allegedly to derail the investigation.
Previous Decisions
Earlier Writ Petition No.2921/2009 was disposed of on 5th December 2009 directing State C.I.D. to investigate; subsequent petitions challenging supervision were dismissed on 1st April 2010; time extension granted on 2nd September 2010.
Issues
Whether the transfer of an investigating officer during investigation can be interfered with under Article 226?
Whether the petitioner has a right to insist that a particular officer continue as investigating officer?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that transfer was malafide and intended to derail investigation.
State argued that transfer is an administrative decision and petitioner has no locus to challenge it.
Ratio Decidendi
Transfer of an investigating officer is an administrative decision of the State and cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless shown to be malafide or in violation of statutory provisions. The petitioner has no right to insist that a particular officer continue as investigating officer.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is the original complainant in private compliant No.1/2006 pending before the Special Judge taking N.D.P.S. cases at Mumbai, has prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Government to transfer Shri Ramesh D.Khade, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. and instead, to appoint some other Officer as the Investigating Officer in that case.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed private complaint No.1/2006; Section 156(3) CrPC order on 21st April 2007; investigation transferred to State C.I.D. via Writ Petition No.2921/2009 disposed on 5th December 2009; subsequent petitions challenging supervision dismissed on 1st April 2010; time extension granted on 2nd September 2010; investigating officer transferred in December 2010; present petition filed in 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 156(3)
