Calcutta High Court clarifies that transfer of investigation from State Police to C.I.D. is warranted where investigative omissions undermine justice; affirms Supreme Court precedent, setting a binding standard for future cases on police investigation transfers in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
WPA/13985/2023 of X Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. CNR WBCHCA0281642023 |
| Date of Registration | 13-06-2023 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJASEKHAR MANTHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice Rajasekhar Mantha) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within territorial jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled decisions of the Supreme Court regarding transfer of investigation |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law (Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Calcutta High Court held that the presence of investigative omissions by the police, which undermine the proper ascertainment of the accused’s role in the alleged offence, can justify transfer of investigation to a higher agency, such as the C.I.D., in the interest of justice. The Court noted that the only investigative action taken was tracing the tower location of the accused; other relevant aspects had not been probed. The Court found further that the petitioner did not have confidence in undergoing medical examination by the State police. Relying on Supreme Court precedent (though not named), the Court confirmed its authority to direct such transfers without needing to address objections from accused counsel. Directions were issued for the Amherst Street Women Police Station to hand over the FIR papers to the C.I.D. West Bengal, and for the investigation to be completed expeditiously within four months. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Settled decisions of the Supreme Court regarding transfer of investigation (details not specified in judgment) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Judicial power to transfer investigation under Article 226 invoked in circumstances where justice is liable to be compromised by inadequacy of police investigation. Supreme Court authority supporting High Court’s discretion, without need to adjudicate on objections from accused in such matters. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The final police report showed several omissions, especially in inquiring into the accused’s role except for tracing the tower location. The petitioner did not have confidence undergoing medical examination under State police. The petitioner undertook to cooperate with the investigation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, especially in cases involving transfer of investigation for proper administration of justice |
| Follows | Settled Supreme Court decisions on transfer of criminal investigations (unspecified) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit clarification that where material omissions exist in police investigation, High Courts can transfer cases to C.I.D. under Article 226.
- The Court need not consider objections from accused counsel against such transfer if Supreme Court law is settled on judicial power in this regard.
- Direction for completion of investigation within a stipulated period (four months) emphasises judicial oversight on expeditiousness and thoroughness.
- Lawyers may rely on this judgment in writ petitions seeking similar transfers based on inadequate police action.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the final police report and noted “several omissions” in investigating the accused’s role, except for tracing the tower location.
- The lack of petitioner’s confidence in the State police’s ability to fairly conduct a medical examination was noted as a factor supporting transfer.
- The Court expressly invoked “settled decisions of the Supreme Court,” confirming judicial authority to transfer investigations where interest of justice demands.
- Objections of the accused were considered unnecessary to be addressed by the Court in light of binding Supreme Court precedent.
- Directions were given to Amherst Street Women Police Station to transfer the relevant FIR documents to the C.I.D. West Bengal, with an expectation of timely and sensitive handling within four months.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Brought to the Court’s notice omissions in the investigation by the police, particularly lack of comprehensive inquiry into the accused’s alleged role.
- Expressed lack of confidence in undergoing medical examination under the State police.
- Undertook to cooperate fully with the investigation by the C.I.D.
Factual Background
The matter arose from an investigation into Amherst Street Women Police Station FIR No.7 of 2022. The final police report revealed that, except for tracing the mobile tower location of the accused, other relevant aspects of the accused’s alleged involvement had not been appropriately investigated. The petitioner expressed unwillingness to undergo medical examination by the State police, citing lack of confidence, and assured the Court of full cooperation with further investigation.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment proceeds under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction, Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- The Court refers (without specific section citation) to its authority to intervene in ongoing criminal investigations where justice demands, and where investigation by State police is found lacking.
- Explicit expectation for the C.I.D., West Bengal to complete its investigation within four months.
Procedural Innovations
- Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is expressly taken on record as part of the judicial process.
- The decision stipulates that all parties may act on a digitally downloaded copy of the order from the official website, modernising the service of order.
- No new procedural rules or guidelines are set, but a targeted time limit (four months) is imposed for completion of investigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed