Back
2009(4) Supreme 418
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
State of M.P. — Appellant
versus
Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2003
Decided on : 15-04-2009
Facts of the Case :
1. A Complaint was filed by victim herein in the instant case alleging that accused had promised her that he will marry her and committed sexual intercourse with her due to which she was carrying a pregnancy of 7 months but refused to marry her because she belonged to a lower caste. FIR was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of ‘IPC’ and Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .Revision petition thereagainst was filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings on plea that investigation was carried out by an officer who was not competent to do so. Said revision petition was allowed by High Court quashing the order framing charge.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that investigation to an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under the IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in appropriate Court for the offences punishable under the IPC notwithstanding investigation and the charge sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of that offence. Instantly no denial of the fact that accusations related to offences under both the Act and the I.P.C. High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the entire proceedings. The order was held liable to be restricted to offence under Section 3 of the Act and not in respect of offences punishable under the IPC. Appeal was allowed to said extent.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—
1. In this appeal, an interesting point has been raised. A learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) quashing the order framing charge.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
On 6.3.2001 a complaint was made to the Police Station , Rampur Gurra by the victim stating that the accused promised her that he will marry her and committed sexual intercourse with her due to which she was carrying a pregnancy of 7 months. But he refused to marry her because she belongs to a lower caste. A criminal case was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) and Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the ‘Act’). A First Information Report was registered.
According to the appellant, since at that time nobody had joined the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police , Hoshangabad Additional Superintendent of Police authorized S.I. B.S. Parihar to investigate into the case who undertook inspection and recorded the statement of the witnesses. After due verification of the case by the Additional Superintendent of Police challan was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad. The accused filed objections and written reply was filed by the investigating officer. The basic grievance was that the investigating officer was not authorized to make investigation in the absence of any authorization by the competent authority. The stand taken before the High Court by the investigating officer was that he had been authorized by the competent authority i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Here again, the only objection of the accused was that the investigation was carried out by an officer who was not competent to do so. Learned Special Judge, (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Hoshangabad passed an order framing the charges against the accused who filed a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) for quashing the entire criminal proceedings by revision of the order of learned special judge. A reply was filed by the prosecuting agency contending that the investigation was carried out under the supervision of Additional Superintendent of Police since the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was lying vacant for about 4 months. After verification of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and on being satisfied with the materials collected during investigation the Additional Superintendent of Police prepared the challan and filed the same before the High Court. No prejudice was caused to the accused. The High Court quashed the entire proceedings.
3. Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court was clearly erroneous. The offence related to both under the IPC and the Act. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the entire proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment.
5. For appreciating the rival submissions, reference needs to be made to Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’).
Section 9 of the act and Rule 7 of the Rules read as follows:
“Section 9-Conferment of powers.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code or in any other provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it necessary or expedient so to so,-
(a) for the prevention of coping with any offence under this act, or
(b) for any case of class of group of cases under this Act, in any district or part thereof, confer, by notification in the Official Gazette, on any officer
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
