STATE OF M.P. versus CHUNNILAL @ CHUNNI SINGH

In this appeal, an interesting point has been raised. A learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the revision application filed gy th~ respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ·~c,c\,leed') quashing the order framing charge.

p. 147, margin C

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 6.3.2001 a complaint was made to the Police Station , Rampur Gurra by the victim stating that the accused promised her that he will marry her and committed sexual intercourse with her due to which she was carrying a pregnancy of 7 months. But he refused to marry her because she belongs to a lower caste. A criminal case was registered for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Act'). A First Information Report was registered. According to the appellant, since at that time nobody had joined the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police , Hoshangabad Additional Superintendent of Police authorized S.I. B.S. Parihar to investigate into the case who undertook inspection and recorded the statement of the witnesses. After due verification of the case by the Additional Superintendent of Police challan was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad. The accused filed objections and written reply was filed by the investigating officer. The that the investigating officer was not authorized investigation in the absence of any authorization competent authority. The stand taken before the investigating officer was that he had been competent authority i.e. Additional Superintendent The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the Court of Sessions. Here again, the only accused was that the investigation was carried who was not competent to do so. Learned (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Hoshangabad passed an order framing the charges against filed a revision petition under Sections Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short quashing the entire criminal proceedings order of learned special judge. A reply prosecuting agency contending that the carried out under the supervision of Additional of Police since the post of Deputy Superintendent was lying vacant for about 4 months. After statements of the prosecution witnesses and with the materia:s collected during investigation Superintendent of Police prepared the challan same before the High Court. No prejudice accused. The High Court quashed the entire

pp. 147–148, margin D

Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel submitted that the approach of the High erroneous. The offence related to both under Act. Therefore, the High Court was not justified entire proceedings.

p. 148, margin F

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment.

p. 148, margin G

For appreciating the rival submissions, to be made to Section 9 of the Act and Rule· [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). Section 9 of the act and Rule 7 follows: "Section 9-Conferment of powers.-anything contained in the code or this Act, the State Government necessary or .expedient so to so,- (a) for the prevention of coping with act, or (b) for any case of class of group in any district or part thereof, confer, Official Gazette, on any officer of the powers exercisable by a police officer such district or part thereof or, as the case or class or group of cases, powers of arrest, investigation and before any Special Court. (2) All officers of police and all other shall assist the officer referred to execution of the provisions of this or order made thereunder. (3) The provisions of the Code shall, apply to the exercise of the powers section (1). Rule 7-/nvestigating Officer,-- (1) under the Act shall be investigated below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Investigating Officer shall be appointed Government/Director-General of Police Police after taking into account his A of ability and justice to perceive the implications: of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. (2) 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 of the State Government. (3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the Officer-in-charge of Prosecution and the Director-General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigation done by the Investigating Officer."

pp. 148–150, margin G

By virtue of its enabling power it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue notification conferring power of investigation of cases by notified police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for different areas in the police districts. Rule 7 of the Rules provided rank of investigation officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer. The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation to an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid. But when the offence complained are both under the IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a competent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for non investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall proceed in appropriate Court for the offences punishable under the IPC notwithstanding investigation and the charge sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of A that offence.

pp. 150–151, margin C

In the present case there is no denial of the fact that the accusations related to offences under both the Act and the l.P.C. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the entire proceedings. The order shall be restricted to the offence under Section 3 of the Act and not in respect of offences punishable under the IPC.

p. 151

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.

p. 151