The High Court clarified that once a charge-sheet is filed and cognizance taken by the trial court, requests for transfer of investigation do not survive and parties must pursue remedies before the appropriate court. The decision upholds existing precedents, providing binding authority for trial-stage intervention requests in Andhra Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/6583/2024 of C V Ramana Rao Vs Union of India |
| CNR | APHC010123172024 |
| Date of Registration | 13-03-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court should direct transfer of investigation to an independent agency after a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance taken. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner challenged the inaction and alleged bias in investigation in FIR No.63/2024 under various IPC and SC/ST Act provisions, seeking transfer of investigation to CBI or another agency. The prosecution submitted that investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed and the trial court had taken cognizance. Multiple property disputes were pending between the parties. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | High Courts elsewhere, especially regarding transfer of investigation after charge-sheet is filed |
| Follows | The established principle that once the charge-sheet is before the competent court, investigation transfer is not ordinarily ordered |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that transfer of investigation by the High Court is not maintainable after filing of charge-sheet and cognizance by the trial court.
- Parties alleging bias or improper investigation post charge-sheet must pursue remedies before the trial court, not through writ petitions.
- The judgment is a binding precedent in Andhra Pradesh regarding timing and scope for seeking transfer to CBI or Special Agencies.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the sequence of events: FIR registration, pending investigation, completion of investigation, and filing of charge-sheet.
- The respondents established that the investigation culminated in a charge-sheet and that cognizance has been taken by the Special Sessions Judge.
- The court held that with the trial court’s cognizance, the prayer for transfer of investigation is rendered infructuous.
- The court referred to the availability of remedies before the trial forum, specifically allowing the petitioner to raise all grievances about the investigation there.
- No irregularity or illegality warranting High Court interference at this stage was found.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Investigation into FIR No.63/2024 was not properly conducted and was biased.
- Requested transfer of investigation to a specialized/independent agency such as CBI.
Respondent (State):
- Investigation was completed by SDPO, Kadapa, and charge-sheet was filed.
- The trial court (Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act) had taken cognizance.
- Multiple civil suits regarding property dispute were pending, but criminal allegations were distinct and had been properly investigated.
- Transfer request was misconceived as investigation had concluded.
Factual Background
A criminal case was registered against the petitioner (FIR No.63/2024 dated 06.02.2024) under Sections 352, 448, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act following a complaint by Gaddam Sreenivasulu. The petitioner alleged biased investigation and inaction by police officials, seeking the transfer of investigation to CBI or another independent agency. The police informed the court that investigation had been concluded, charge-sheet filed, and the Special Sessions Court had taken cognizance, posting the case for further proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution: The court reiterated that its power of judicial review is not ordinarily exercised to transfer investigations after charge-sheet has been filed and trial court has taken cognizance.
- Code of Criminal Procedure: Filing of charge-sheet before the competent court marks completion of investigation.
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act: Cognizance taken by the Special Court as per the Act.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural norms or innovations are established by the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment adheres to established precedent regarding the transfer of investigations post charge-sheet.