REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 943  OF 2003

               State of M.P.  ...Appellant

Versus

Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh  - ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. In this  appeal,  an  interesting  point  has  been  raised.  A learned  Single

Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the revision application filed

by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) quashing the order

framing charge.  

2. 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 basic

grievance  was  that  the  investigating  officer  was  not  authorized  to  make

investigation in the absence of any authorization by the competent authority.

The stand taken before the High Court by the investigating officer was that he

2

had been authorized by the competent authority i.e. Additional Superintendent

of  Police.  The learned  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  committed  the  case  to  the

Court of Sessions.  Here again, the only objection of the accused was that the

investigation was carried out by an officer who was not competent to do so.

Learned Special Judge,  (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Hoshangabad

passed an order framing the charges against the accused who filed a revision

petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(in short the ‘Code’) for quashing the entire criminal proceedings by revision

of the order of learned special judge.   A reply was filed by the prosecuting

agency contending that the investigation was carried out under the supervision

of Additional Superintendent of Police since the post of Deputy Superintendent

of  Police  was  lying  vacant  for  about  4  months.   After  verification  of  the

statements  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  and  on  being  satisfied  with  the

materials  collected  during  investigation   the  Additional  Superintendent  of

Police  prepared  the  challan  and  filed  the  same  before  the  High  Court.  No

prejudice  was  caused  to  the  accused.  The  High  Court  quashed  the  entire

proceedings.  

3. Mr.  C.D. Singh,  learned counsel   for  the  appellant  submitted that  the

approach of the  High Court was clearly erroneous. The offence related to both

3

under  the  IPC and the  Act.  Therefore,  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in

quashing the entire proceedings.  

4. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  on  the  other  hand  supported  the

judgment.

5. For appreciating the rival  submissions,  reference needs to be made to

Section 9 of the Act and Rule 7 of  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’).  

Section 9 of the act and Rule 7 of the Rules read as follows:

“Section  9-Conferment  of  powers.--  (1)  Notwithstanding anything contained in the code or in any other provision of this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it necessary or . expedient so to so,-

(a) for the prevention of coping with any offence under this act, or  

(b) for any case of class of group of cases under this Act,

in  any district  or  part  thereof,  confer,  by notification  in  the Official  Gazette,  on any officer  of  the State  Government the powers exercisable by a police officer under the Code in such district or part thereof or, as the case may be, for such case or class or group of cases, and in particulars, the powers of arrest, investigation  and  prosecution  of  persons  before  any  Special Court.

4

(2) All officers of police and all other officers of Government shall  assist  the  officer  referred  to  in  Sub-section  (1)  in  the execution of the provisions of this Act or any rule, scheme or order made thereunder.

(3) The provisions of the Code shall, so far as may be, apply to the exercise of the powers by an officer under Sub-section (1).

Rule  7-Investigating  Officer,--  (1)  An  offence  committed under  the  Act  shall  be  investigated  by  a  Police  Officer  not below  the  rank  of  a  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police.  The Investigating  Officer  shall  be  appointed  by  the  State Government/Director-General  of  Police  Superintendent  of Police after  taking into account  his  post  experience sense 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.”  

6. 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

5

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 that  offence.   

7. In the  present  case there  is  no  denial  of  the fact  that  the  accusations

related  to offences  under both the Act and the I.P.C.  The High Court  was

therefore not justified in quashing the entire proceedings. The order shall be

6

restricted  to  the  offence  under  Section  3  of  the  Act  and  not  in  respect  of

offences punishable under the IPC.  

8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.   

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, April 15, 2009

7