REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.   985        OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3837 of 2006)  

State of Punjab  ...Appellant

Versus

Hardial Singh and Ors.  ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge  

of  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  passed  in  an  application   under  

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’).  

The respondents were accused of having committed the offences punishable  

under Sections 364, 324, 323, 149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  

(in  short  the  ‘IPC’)  and  Section  3(2)(v)  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The stand taken was  

that  as  per  Rule  7  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  

(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (in short the ‘Rules’) framed under  

the Act,  investigation had to be undertaken by an officer not below the rank  

of  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police  specially  appointed  by  the  State  

Government/Director  General  of  Police/Superintendent  of  Police  after  

taking into account of his experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive  

the implication of the case and investigate it along with right lines within  

the shortest possible time.  

2

The stand of the State was that SP (D), Ferozepur had authorized Shri  

Manwinder Singh to investigate the case. It was admitted that there is a SSP  

in Ferozpur district who shall come within the definition of SP under Rule 7  

of the Rules. The High Court held that SP (D) cannot be called District SP  

or  the  incharge  of  the  District  who  could  mark  investigation  to  DSP  

Manwinder  Singh.  It  was,  therefore,  held  that  the  charges  against  the  

accused-respondents in the present case were to be dropped in respect of  

offences punishable under Sections 364, 324, 323, 149 and 148 IPC, and  

Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. After having said so, the High Court said that the  

observation that so far as the other offences are concerned as per report of  

the Deputy Superintendent  of Police himself there had been party faction  

and efforts have been made to implicate  many persons possibly the present  

petitioners.  Strangely, the High Court found that the accused persons have  

been  charged  by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Ferozpur  for  offence  

punishable under Section 364 IPC for abducting Surjeet so that he may be  

murdered.  

But, having observed so the High Court said that it cannot be said that  

there was no prima facie case against the petitioners (meaning thereby the  

3

accused persons) to frame charges and disposed of the case in the above  

terms.  

3. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant-State  submitted  that  the  order  is  

absolutely confusing. At one stage the High Court had directed the charges  

against the accused persons for all the offences both under the IPC and the  

Act to be dropped but at subsequent stage it had noted that it cannot be said  

that there was no prima facie case against the accused persons to frame the  

charges.  

4. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment.  

5. As is rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant-State the  

order  is  very confusing.  Be  that  as  it  may the  only  question  is  whether  

investigation done by the police officer specifically authorized to do so in  

terms of the Rule 7 is illegal  qua offences not relatable to any provision  

under the Act.  Recently, the controversy of the present nature was decided  

by this  Court  in  State  of  M.P. v.  Chunnilal  @ Chunni  Singh  (Criminal  

Appeal No. 943 of 2003) decided on 15.4.2009.

6. Having the view expressed in Chunnilal’s case (supra) we hold that  

only investigation qua the offence under the Act is vulnerable and not those  

4

relatable to IPC. It is open to the State to authorize any person in the manner  

prescribed to investigate into the offences under the Act.

7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.     

………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………………………………….J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, May 08, 2009

5