High Court Of Jharkhand
Judgename : D. N. PRASAD
MATHURA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND - Respondents
CRI. MISC. PETN. 4548 Of 2001
Decided On : 03/19/2002
S. 482 - Criminal Procedure - Quashing of criminal proceeding under Indian Penal Code and Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceeding against them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mandatory provision under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, regarding investigation by a Deputy Superintendent of Police was not complied with, thus quashing the offence under the Act. However, the offences under the Indian Penal Code remained intact and were directed to be tried by the Court.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and compliance with the mandatory provision for investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence under the Act was vitiated as the Police Officer who investigated the case had no jurisdiction to entertain the case under the said Act, thus quashing the offence under the Act. However, the offences under the Indian Penal Code remained intact and were directed to be tried by the Court.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of with the quashing of the offence under the Act and direction to try the case only for the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
D. N. PRASAD, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Patan P. S. Case No. 16 of 1997 corresponding to G. R. No. 124 of 1997 relating to SC/st No. 19 of 1997 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 341, 323, 342, 504, 379, 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act ).
( 2 ) THE short facts giving rise to the prosecution case is that one Bhukhli Devi wife of Santu Bhuinya and Nirmala Devi wife of Jai Prakash Ram had gone defecate near a Government Pond early in the morning at 6 a. m. Shortly thereafter the petitioners came there and abused them and also reprimanded them for having come near the Pond. There is also an allegation that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 took away the golden chain from the person of Nirmala Devi. They had earlier abused and assaulted the female folk and also there is an allegation of outrage modesty. Accordingly, a First Information Report was lodged against the accused/petitioners.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument at this stage that Ss. 3/4 of the Act will not apply in this case as the mandatory provision under R. 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) has not been complied with which apparently says that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is also enunciated that the Investigating Officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police to the State Government. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this mandatory provision has not been complied with as regards to the offence under Ss. 3/4 of the Act. I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel in this respect that it is only the Deputy Superintendent of Police who can investigate into the case is regards the offence made out under Ss. 3/4 of the Act. On this score, the offence under Ss. 3/4 of the Act is vitiated as the Police Officer who investigated the case has no jurisdiction to entertain the case under the said Act.
( 4 ) THUS I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel and, as such, the offence under Ss. 3/4 of the Act is not applicable/made out in this case for which the order taking cognizance against the said offenceis hereby quashed.
( 5 ) HOWEVER, as regards the offence under the Indian Penal Code, the Police Officer, who is duly empowered to investigate into the case, has investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet accordingly. Thus the offences under the Indian Penal Code remain intact. The Court below will take up the matter and try the case only for the offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Court below is directed to send the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned for transferring the same to the competent Court for trial under the Indian Penal Code in accordance with law.
( 6 ) WITH the aforesaid observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Order accordingly.
--- *** ---
.
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.