IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajan Roy, Sanjay Kumar Pachori, JJ.
Gyanendra Maurya @ Gullu – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Thru Secy Ministry Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.7522 of 2022
Decided On : 02-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks declaration against provisions imposing charge-sheet filing. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. interpretation of terms within legal provisions affects charge-sheet requirements. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court affirms provisions permit filing based on evidence, not mandating charge-sheets. (Para 5 , 7 , 19) |
| 4. jurisdiction limitations of exclusive special court regarding firs clarified. (Para 10 , 12 , 18) |
| 5. court notes procedure for lodging fir under rules. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 6. court establishes exclusive jurisdiction for investigation under the act. (Para 25 , 26 , 34) |
| 7. court denies relief for multiple punishments under different provisions. (Para 41 , 42 , 44) |
| 8. dismissal of petition without prejudice to petitioner's rights. (Para 43 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
Rajan Roy, J.
Heard.
2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 (contained as annexure No.3 to the writ petition), passed by the Exclusive Special Court, Pratapgarh, with all consequential proceedings, or,
iii). issue a writ, order or direction commanding the opposite parties No.2 and 3 to delete the Section 376-D and 506 I.P.C. from the FIR No.100 of 2022 registered at P.S. Maheshganj, District Pratapgarh, under Sections 376- D, 506 IPC and 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the Act 1989."
3. Vide Relief No.1, he has sought a declaration that Section 4(2)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act 1989) and Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Rules) 1995 (for short ‘the Rules of 1995') be declared ultra vires Part III of the Constitution of India to the extent the said provisions necessarily direct for filing of charge sheet.
4. In order to consider this issue and relief prayed for, we need refer to Section 4 including sub-Section (2)(e) of the Act 1989 which reads as under:
(2) The duties of public servant referred to in sub-section (1) shall include- (a) to read out to an informant the information given orally, and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, before taking the signature of the informant;
(b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register it under appropriate sections of this Act;
(c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded forthwith to the informant;
(d) to record the statement of the victims or witnesses;
(e) to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing; to correctly prepare, frame and translate any document or electronic record;
(g) to perform any other duty specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder:
Provided that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry.
(3) The cognizance in respect of any dereliction of duty referred to in sub-section (2) by a public servant shall be taken by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court and shall
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....
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.
The Magistrate has discretion under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to decide whether to register an FIR based on the application, assessing whether a cognizable offense is made out.
The Special Judge established under the Act has the power to treat the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, contrary to the previous decision in Soni Devi case.
Cognizance taken without hearing the accused for added charges under IPC is unsustainable; rights to a fair process must be preserved.
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.