REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.      2039 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 6835 OF 2015]

ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS.      APPELLANT(S)

                        VERSUS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellants  are  aggrieved  by  the  order dated  22.07.2015  passed  in  Crl.  Misc.  Petition No.1392 of 2008 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.  The High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) on a prayer made by the

1

appellants for quashing the Supplementary Report filed under Section 173 of CrPC. dated 26.04.2007 by the Investigating Officer. It is stated in the Report itself that the charges are added at the instance of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the Commission”). The Report, to the extent relevant, reads as follows:-

“It is most respectfully submitted that NCR No.96/04 u/s. 323, 504, 506 IPC was registered at PS Motiganj on 10.2.2007 and subsequently Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST  (Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act was  inserted  under  the  directions  of Hon'ble  SC/ST  Commission and  the investigation of the case was taken up by  me.   On  the  basis  of  the  entire investigation,  statement  of  informant and witnesses, inspection of the place of occurrence, prima facie case for the offence  u/s  323,  504,  506  IPC  and Section  3(1)(x)  of  the  SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the named accused in the FIR.  The  sequence  of  events  are  in accordance  with  the  NCR  No.96/04  in which  investigation  has  already  been concluded in the past and charge sheet no.  nil/04  dated  21.9.2004  u/s  323, 504, 506 IPC has been submitted in the Court  against  Bharat  Singh,  Vishnu Singh and Eshwar Pratap Singh.  After concluding  further  supplementary investigation in the case, the instant charge sheet no. 17/07 against accused

2

Bharat Singh, Vishnu Pratap Singh and Eshwar  Singh  for  the  offence  under Section  3(1)(x)  of  the  SC/ST (Prevention  of  Atrocities)  Act  and accused Angad Singh under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the  SC/ST  (Prevention  of  Atrocities) Act  is  being  submitted  before  the Court. It is most humbly prayed that learned Court may be pleased to include this  supplementary  charge  sheet  no. 17/07 with the earlier Charge Sheet No. Nil/04 u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC and issue summons to all the accused persons for their trial u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x)of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”

   (Emphasis supplied)

 3. Background: The Respondent No. 2/ complainant lodged an NCR bearing no. 96/04 dated 25.07.2004 against the appellants at P.S Motiganj, District Gonda for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860  (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). In the first chargesheet dated 21.09.2004 filed by the Police before the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Gonda  the  appellants were charged under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is the case of the appellants that more than two years after the first chargesheet

3

was filed, the Respondent No. 2 made a complaint dated 03.12.2006 before the Commission. It appears that  within  three  days,  by  letter  dated 06.12.2006,  the  Commission  requested  for  the addition  of  Section  3(1)(x)  of  the  Scheduled Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes  (Prevention  of Atrocities)  Act.  The  direction  issued  by  the Commission reads as follows:-

“Sub.: Regarding protection to atrocity victim  –  Representation  of  Sri  Ram Bahadur s/o Late Pherai, Vill. Kahova, PS Motiganj, Dist. Gonda. Sir,

On the subject cited above, please recall  the  deliberation  during  the District  Level  Meeting  held  on 27.11.2006  whereat  the  enclosed photocopy  of  the  inquiry  report received  from  the  Circle  Officer, Mankapur,  Gonda  addressed  to  you  was discussed.  It has come to light from a perusal  of  the  aforesaid  report  that charge  sheet  u/s  323/504/506  IPC  has been  submitted  against  the  accused persons  in  NCR  No.96/04  PS  Motiganj, Dist. Gonda.  In this context, it is to state  as  to  why  the  appropriate Sections of SC/ST Act were not invoked in the said case, whereas Section 3(1) (x)  of  the  SC/ST  (Prevention  of Atrocities)  Act  clearly  provides  that “Whoever,  not  being  a  member  of  a

4

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally  insults  or  intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable.”   Therefore,  it  would  be just  and  proper  to  invoke  the appropriate  sections  of  SC/ST  Act  in the present case.

It is, therefore, requested that in view of the aforementioned facts, you may  add  Section  3(1)(x)  of  the  SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, besides Section  323/504/506  IPC,  in  the  NCR No.96/04  and  submit  supplementary charge sheet in the Court as well as a proposal  to  the  competent  authority thereby recommending grant of financial help to the victims.  Please send the desired  information  along  with  action taken  report/report  on  the  proposed action  to  the  undersigned  at  the earliest possible.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- illegible

(Dr. Dibakar Basak)          Dy. Director & Head of the Office”

                           (Emphasis supplied)

4. Aggrieved,  the  appellants  filed  a  Writ Petition No. 2330 (M/B) of 2007 before the High Court. Vide order dated 13.04.2007, the High Court stayed  the  arrest  of  the  appellants.  The  order reads as follows-

“It  has  been  pleaded  in  the  writ

5

petition  that  provisions  of  S.C./S.T. Act  have  been  deliberately  added  in order to harass the petitioners. The NCR was  registered  under  Sections 323/504/506 IPC only. It has also been asserted in the writ petition that there is no allegation that offences under the provisions  of  S.C./S.T.  Act  have  been made out.  

We are of the considered view that prima facie a case for interim relief is made out in favour of the petitioners.

Issue  notice  to  Opposite  Party No. 4.

Counter  Affidavit  may  be  filed within four weeks. Rejoinder Affidavit, if  any,  may  be  filed  within  one  week thereafter.

The arrest of the petitioners shall remain  stayed  in  Case  Crime  No.8/07, u/s. 323/504/506 & 3(1) (X) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Motiganj, District Gonda.

The  petitioners  shall  cooperate  in the investigation.”

 5. After the supplementary chargesheet was filed, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC. While deciding the Section 482 Petition, the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  the  charges cannot be quashed in a piecemeal manner. The short judgment dated 22.7.2015, reads as follows:-

“This  petition  under  Section  482

6

Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.531 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No. 08 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.  and  3(1)(x)  of  SC/ST  Act  P.S. Motiganj, district Gonda. Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner states that no case under Section 3(1) (x) of  SC/ST Act is made out and in the  supplementary  charge  sheet  under this  Section  has  been  filed subsequently.   I  find  no  illegality  in  the  charge sheet.  The charges cannot be quashed in piecemeal.  This petition is devoid of  merit  and  it  is,  accordingly, dismissed.”

6. Heard Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned counsel for the  appellants  and  Mr.  Ratnakar  Dash,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  Respondent No.1/State.  Though notice is served on Respondent No.2, there is no appearance.

7. We do not think that any detailed discussion is warranted on the well-settled proposition that no  external  agency  can  dictate  the  course  of investigation in a criminal case. It is within the exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  police  [see  R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu & Others (2000) 4 SCC 459)].

7

The Court also cannot supervise the investigation. However,  in  exceptional  situations,  Superior Courts may monitor an investigation. But that is not the same as supervision.1 No doubt, superior officers of police may exercise their powers under Section 36 CrPC in supervising the investigation. In the instant case, it appears that the direction was issued on the basis of a complaint filed by Respondent No.2 before the Commission. It is not clear as to whether the Commission had conducted any  inquiry  before  issuing  direction  to  the Police.  At  any  rate,  it  is  submitted  that  the appellants  have  not  been  involved  in  any  such inquiry.  Equally,  it  is  not  clear  whether  the second  respondent  had  made  out  a  case  for  the intervention of the Commission under the Rules of Procedure  of  National  Commission  for  Scheduled Castes. In this context it is relevant to note the contents  of  the  NCR  bearing  No.  96/04  dated 25.07.2004 which read as follows:-

1  Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others (2014) 2  SCC 532

8

“To,  the  Station  House  Officer, Police  Station  Motiganj,  Dist. Gonda.  Sir,    It  is  submitted  that  the applicant/informant  Ram  Bahadur  s/o late  Ram  Pherai  is  a  permanent resident  of  village  Kahovi,  post office Dalpatpur, Dist. Gonda. Gata No. 97 situated on Motiganj Road is recorded  in  the  name  of  the applicant.  Today,  some  people equipped  with  firearms  came  to forcibly  grab  the  land  of  he applicant.  They  assaulted  the applicant,  abused  him  with  filthy language  and  threatened  him  saying that “if you speak further, we will kill  you  this  time  and  throw  your body”. Names  of  the  assaulters  are  as under :- Bharat  Singh,  Eshwar  Pratap  Singh and  Vishnu  Pratap  Singh  sons  of Angad Singh and Angad Singh s/o not known  residents  of  village  Kahova, post Dalpatpur, dist. Gonda.

You are, therefore, requested to kindly register my report and take action against the guilty persons. I shall be grateful to you. Applicant.  Ram  Bahadur  s/o  Pherai, Scheduled Caste – Chamar, r/o Vill. Kahovi, post Dalpatpur, Gonda.  Date:- 25.7.04 at 6.00 pm.”

8. From a perusal of the above it is clear that 9

the ingredients under Section 3 (1)(x) have not been made out. There was not even a whisper of allegation of harassment based on caste. That is why the first chargesheet was only under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is over two years later that the Respondent No. 2 appears to have complained  to  the  Commission.  Under  Rule 7.5.2(vi), the Commission is empowered to conduct an  inquiry  to  “whether  proper  charge  sheet  has been filed mentioning the relevant sections of IPC together with the PCR Act, 1955 and SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 in Court”. This is not a power to dictate  the  course  of  the  investigation.  The Commission is competent to point out any lapses or laches in the investigation. The Commission could only have brought to notice of the Police the need for a proper or further investigation and it was for the Police to take a call.

9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external  interference  in  investigation  and  the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its

10

jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a chargesheet in part. A person may be  accused  of  several  offences  under  different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the CrPC or  for  prevention  of  abuse  of  process,  or otherwise  to  secure  the  ends  of  justice.  A chargesheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the chargesheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part.   Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.  The  Supplementary  Report  filed  by  the Police,  at  the  direction  of  the  Commission,  is quashed.

11

10.  However,  we  make  it  clear  that  the  order passed by this Court shall not stand in the way of the police and for that matter the Court, taking any steps in due exercise of their powers under the provisions of the CrPC, if so warranted, at any stage.

.......................J.                [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.                            [AMITAVA ROY]

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 28, 2017.

12