SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2129

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Gyanendra Singh
For the Respondent: ASGI

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 4(2)(e) - Writ petition challenging the mandatory requirement of filing charge sheets by Investigating Officers under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) as unreasonable and ultra vires to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution - Court held that provisions do not mandate filing charge sheets in every case where an FIR is lodged unless evidence substantiates an offence - Relief rejected. (Paras 7, 40)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 156(3) and 190 - Court determined that Exclusive Special Courts have powers to order lodging of FIRs and conduct investigations under the Act 1989. (Paras 20, 36)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought relief declaring certain provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, ultra vires the Constitution. It was contended that the language mandates filing a charge sheet in every case regardless of sufficient evidence. The Court discussed the implications of the said provisions concerning the duties of Investigating Officers and the powers of Special Courts. (Paras 2, 5, 20)

Findings of Court:
The Court reiterated that there are reasonable limitations in the requirement for filing charge sheets, and it clarified that the Special Courts under the Act do possess the authority to direct police investigations when warranted. (Paras 27, 28)

Issues: Whether the provisions under challenge make the filing of a charge sheet mandatory in every FIR alleging an offence under the Act. Whether Exclusive Special Courts possess the authority to order FIR registrations. (Paras 4, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed that the provisions must be read reasonably and emphasized that a charge sheet need only be filed if evidence supports the allegations. The power of the Exclusive Special Courts to instruct police investigations was recognized, countering the petitioner's claim of exclusivity in jurisdiction. (Paras 6, 38)

Result: Petition dismissed.

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:

    "i). Issue a writ order or direction declaring the Section 4(2)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Rules) 1995, ultra- vires to Part III of the Constitution of India upto the extent they both necessarily directs for filing of ‘charge sheet'.

    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:

    "4. Punishment for neglect of duties. (1) Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act and the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.

    (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

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top