SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Himanshu Kumar & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 103 of 2009
Decided on : 14-07-2022
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of massacre by state forces. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. request for investigation and compensation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of victims and incidents. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. state's defense against allegations. (Para 20 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. court's decision on investigation. (Para 44 , 50 , 66) |
JUDGMENT
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India relates to the alleged massacre that took place on 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009 respectively in the villages of Gachhanpalli, Gompad and Belpocha respectively situated in the district of Dantewada, State of Chhattisgarh.
2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the activists of Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by the Chhattisgarh Government) and the Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF and the CoBRA Battalions are responsible for the alleged brutal massacre of the tribals in the respective villages referred to above.
3. In the aforesaid context, the writ petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to have the CBI take over the investigation and prosecution with respect to the complaints made by the petitioners and others with respect to the massacres that took place on 17.9.2009 and 1.10.2009 as set out in this petition;
(b) Pass an order directing the payment of compensation to the victims and their families for the extra judicial executions, for the looting of their properties, for the burning of their houses and other losses suffered by the victims on account of the unlawful activities of the respondents and their agents;
(c) Pass any such further order or orders, as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances stated herein above.”
4. By way of the Criminal M.P. No. 3173 of 2010, further reliefs have been prayed for as under :
“(a) Order directing the State of Chhattisgarh to constitute and notify a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Shri Sankar Sen (IPS) Dr.K.S.Subramanian, IPS and Mr.Rajneesh Rai, DIG and such other officers as the SIT may deem necessary with additional directions for the proper functioning of the SIT as given by the Supreme Court in the case of NHRC vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 342, 767).
(b) Order directing the State of Chhattisgarh to produce Petitioners 2-12 at Delhi and hand them over to Dr.Mohini Giri, Chairperson, Guild for Services, Shubham, C-25, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi;
(c) Order permitting the petitioner no.1 and the advocates for the petitioner no.1 along with their interpreters to meet the petitioners 2-12 at the Guild for Services, New Delhi in the presence of Dr.Mohini Giri;
(d) Order requesting Dr.Mohini Giri, Chairperson, Guild for Services, New Delhi, to interview the petitioners and make a report to this Court.”
5. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition may be summarised as under :
6. The writ petitioner no.1, namely Himanshu Kumar, claims himself to be running an NGO in the name of Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, Kanwalnar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. He claims to be running an NGO for the welfare and development of the tribals residing in the Bastar region. He also claims to be rendering help to the other tribals of the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh.
7. The writ petitioners nos. 2 to 13 respectively are the kith and kin of the victims of the alleged massacre.
8. It is the case of the petitioner no.1 that after the two horrifying incidents referred to above, the tribals are in a state of shock. They constantly remain under the fear of being killed by the Special Forces referred to above.
9. It is his case that with a view to help the tribals and seek justice for them, he took up the cause and thought fit to prefer the present writ petition seeking an inv
Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and another
Baban Singh and another v. Jagdish Singh and others
CBI & another v. Rajesh Gandhi and another
Chandrapal Singh and Others v. Maharaj Singh and Another
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala
E. Sivakumar v. Union of India
K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another
K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai
M.Muthuswamy v. Special Police Establishment [1985 Cri LJ 420 (Mad)] [Para 81]
M.S. Sheriff and Another v. State of Madras and Others
Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and another
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat
NHRC vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 342
Pritish v. State of Maharashtra
R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka and Others
Romila Thapar v. Union of India
S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India
Santokh Singh & Ors. v. Izhar Hussan & Anr.
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr.
Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya
State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh
State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
AI
Malicious prosecution claims must show prima facie cases are unfounded; mere political allegations do not suffice to quash FIRs without substantive evidence.
The accused has no right to dictate the investigating agency or method of investigation, and the plea of alibi must be substantiated with cogent evidence.
It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of....
Point of law : There is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the....
(1) Offences referred to under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will get attracted only with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.(2) In a case....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. to be made out, the complaint must falsely charge a person with having committed an offence, with the....
The court emphasized the importance of thorough examination of allegations before transferring an investigation to CBI and highlighted the petitioner's failure to register an FIR or seek remedy under....
The judgment emphasizes the need for fair investigation and clarifies the exceptional circumstances for transferring investigation to the CBI.
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.