SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya - Appellant
Versus
Anand Athabhai Chaudhari & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2021
Decided On : 26-10-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Sections 482, 209 , 207-A , 207 , 197, 193 , 209 and 460(e) - Atrocities Act - Sections 14 and 3(1)(x) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - Criminal Intimidation - Original accused no.1 who was working as Police Sub Inspector alleging inter alia that the original accused persons named therein obstructed public servants in performance of their duties and was beaten by them under the guise that they were not able to catch the thief and caused injuries to them - complainant herein, in the village there were increasing incidents of theft and loot, due to which, the villagers were afraid - Original accused persons abused the complainant with regard to her caste and also caused injuries to her - Alleged in FIR, the original accused persons also ransacked house of complainant and also beat son of complainant and took away husband of the complainant and gave threats to them with dire consequences - Case of complainant – Held, alleged to have been done by the accused/Police Officers can be said to be part of official duties stage, to quash entire criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is impermissible - Even assuming that the High Court was right that in absence of sanction under Section 197, the proceedings are vitiated, in that case, the High Court could have directed authority to take sanction and then proceed, instead of completely quashing the entire criminal proceedings - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat passed in Special Criminal Application No.5670 of 2017, by which, the High Court has allowed the said Special Criminal Application and has quashed and set aside the FIR being M Case No.2 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Atrocities Act”) and also quashing and setting aside the order of issuance of summons dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Jhalod in Criminal Inquiry No.108 of 2013 as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, the original informant/complainant has preferred present Appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under :
2.1. That on 06.09.2013, one FIR being CR.No.I-104 of 2013 came to be registered against the husband of the original complainant-appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 362, 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. That the said FIR was lodged/given at the instance of the respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.1 who was working as Police Sub Inspector alleging inter alia that the original accused persons named therein obstructed the public servants in performance of their duties and was beaten by them under the guise that they were not able to catch the thief and caused injuries to them.
2.2. As per the case of the complainant herein, in the village there were increasing incidents of theft and loot, due to which, the villagers were afraid. On 6.9.2013, at about 8 pm one thief came to the house of one Pravinbhai who lives in their society and thereafter, the police were called; that the Police Officers came to the Society and since the people from the society were not satisfied with the police, the accused persons who are Police Officers got excited and thereafter, staff from SP Office, Dahod was called and thereafter the respondent no.1 – original accused no.1 went back to Limdi Police Station. As per the case of the complainant, at 10.30 pm on 06.09.2013, when the residents of the society were in their houses and at that time, the complainant was sitting outside her house, three Police Officers came in a car and original accused nos. 1 and 2 came to the society and all the original accused persons abused the complainant with regard to her caste and also caused injuries to her. As alleged in the FIR, the original accused persons also ransacked the house of complainant and also beat the son of the complainant and took away husband of the complainant and gave threats to them with dire consequences. As per the case of the complainant, she tried to lodge a formal complaint on 07.09.2013, but was unable to get the same lodged and therefore, she was constrained to file the complaint before the learned Magistrate on 13.09.2013. That learned Magistrate sent the complaint for investigation as per Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by observing that having heard the complainant and perused the documentary evidence and considering the seriousness of the case, the investigation is required. The learned Magistrate also directed the Investigating Officer to submit the report before 29.10.2013 and also directed that yadi in this regard should be sent to the Dy.Sp, Dahod. That the Investigating Officer submitted report on 29.05.2014 stating that the allegation in the FIR with regard to beating are not supported and as per the statement of Dy.Sp recorded on 27.5.2014, the accused no.2 was present with him in Limdi Police Station at the time of alleged offence and had not gone outside the police station. In the report, it was also stated that statements of the witnesses are general and vague and after investigation, there is no evidence to proceed with the matte
The legislative intent behind enacting the special legislation and the requirement for the trial court to commit the case to the competent court.
The Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot take direct cognizance of offences under the IPC without prior committal by a Magistrate, aligning with the hierarchy of c....
Cognizance taken without hearing the accused for added charges under IPC is unsustainable; rights to a fair process must be preserved.
Pont of law : Procedure provided under Section 33 (1) with regard to the power of the Special Court to take cognizance, without any committal of the accused, to the extent of any inconsistency, would....
The Special Court under the SC/ST Act can take cognizance of offences without prior commitment from a Magistrate and amendments have no retrospective effect unless expressly stated.
(1) Criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of first informant or complainant.(2) Crimin....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Special Court had the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and summon the petitioner without a committal order by the Magistrat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.