SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE, JJ.
Rabina Ghale & Anr. – Petitioners
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 265 of 2022
WITH
Anjali Gupta – Petitioners
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 250 of 2022
Decided On : 17-09-2024
Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 – Section 6 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 326, 201, 34 IPC r/w 120-B – Section 4 – Killing of Army Personnel and civilians in Nagaland – Sanction under Section 6 of Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 19581 has since been declined by competent authority – In view of specific bar contained in Section 6 of AFSP Act, 1958 which provides that no prosecution, suit, or other legal proceedings can be instituted except with previous sanction of Central Government with respect to exercise of any power conferred under said Act, proceedings based on impugned FIRs cannot continue any further – Proceedings arising from impugned FIRs deserve to be quashed – Proceedings pursuant to impugned FIRs shall remain closed – However, in case sanction is granted at any stage under Section 6 of AFSP Act, 1958, proceedings pursuant to impugned FIRs may continue and may proceed in accordance with law and be brought to a logical conclusion. (Paras 3, 4, 6 and 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner are seeking writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing Suo motu FIR bearing State Crime Police Station (SCPS) Case registered by Respondent No.2, Complaint dated 07.12.2021 by the Respondent No.3, Findings and recommendations of SIT constituted by Respondent No.2 dated 24.03.2022 seeking sanction to prosecute husbands of Petitioners along with 28 other Team members u/s 302, 307, 326, 201, 34 IPC r/w 120-B IPC and for initiating disciplinary action against entire team as per provisions of Army Act and Rules, and all other ancillary proceedings emanating out of said FIR.
Findings of Court:
In case, if ultimately at some stage, sanction is granted under Section 6 of AFSP Act, 1958, proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIRs are liable to be continued.
Result : Writ Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 265 of 2022 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 250 of 2022 have been filed with the following prayers:
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to desist from engaging in such arbitrary exercises of executive power which impairs the normal and bona fide functioning of the Army in the area;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent authorities to issue guidelines to protect the Rights of soldiers so that no soldier is harassed by initiation of criminal proceedings for bona fide actions in exercise of their duties, as mandated by the Union of India, in protection of sovereignty, integrity and dignity of the Country;
(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing that adequate compensation is provided to the effected serving personnel and their families, who have been unnecessarily embroiled in mala fide criminal proceedings in discharge of their bona fide duties;
v) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the local Police authorities to investigate and file Charge-sheet in the FIR No. 27/2021, instituted by 21 PARA (SF) and prosecute the perpetrators for Terrorist Activities against the unruly, violent and armed mob led to the martyrdom of Paratrooper Gautam Lal, grievous injuries to the entire Operations team and the four civilian drivers, the loss of property by burning the four civil pattern vehicles which had come to extricate the team from the site of the incident, the loss of weapons and ammunitions snatched away from the team and which were burned once the vehicles were set on fire, while discharging duties as ordered by the Central Government; Alternatively,
vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing that investigation of the said FIR No. 28/2021 to be carried out in another state with independent and unbiased investigating agencies;
vii) Pass any other appropriate writ/order/direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Without going into detailed facts, it would be relevant to quote an order dated 19.07.2022 passed by this Court in the above two writ petitions, as the said order incorporates the crux of the matter:
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate-on-Record accepts notice on behalf of the Union of India and Ministry of Defence.
These Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, have been filed by the wives of officers of the Indian Army for quashing of Suo Moto FIR, bearing State Crime Police Station (SCPS) Case No.07/2021 registered against the personnel of 21 PARA(SF), Unit of the Indian Army including the respective husbands of the Writ Petitioners under Sections 302, 307, 326, 201, 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) the findings and recommendations of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) dated 24th March 2022 constituted by Respondent No.2. The proceedings in this case emanate out of an incident dated 4th December 2021 which led to a firing
Sanction for prosecution – In absence of previous sanction criminal proceedings cannot continue.
Mandatory previous sanction under Section 6 of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 is required before instituting any prosecution, suit, or legal proceedings.
The timing for raising issues regarding absence or vitiation of sanction is crucial, and a mere error, omission, or irregularity in sanction is not fatal unless it results in the failure of justice o....
Public servants are protected from prosecution for acts done in official capacity only if there is a reasonable connection to their duties, necessitating prosecution sanction.
(1) Sanctioning Authority is required to apply its mind on the basis of fact gathered in course of investigation by Investigating Agency.(2) NIA can carry on further investigation and submit a supple....
The court emphasized that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.
Adultery – Section 497 of IPC and Section 198 of Cr.P.C. are unconstitutional – Members of Armed Forces have their own set of laws.
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.