Supreme Court clarifies the power of Magistrates to take cognizance under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari (26 October 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 October 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 722

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a criminal case be thrown out simply because a Magistrate, instead of a Special Court, initially took cognizance of an offense under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case where the High Court of Gujarat had quashed criminal proceedings on this very ground. This judgment clarifies the powers of Magistrates and Special Courts in handling cases under the Atrocities Act.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, delivered the judgment. The majority opinion was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case arose from an incident on 6th September 2013, where an FIR was initially lodged against the husband of the complainant, Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya, for allegedly obstructing public servants. This FIR was filed by Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, a Police Sub Inspector. According to Shantaben, there had been increasing incidents of theft in their village, causing fear among the residents. On the night of 6th September 2013, after a theft incident, the police were called. When the villagers expressed dissatisfaction with the police response, the police officers allegedly became agitated.

Later that night, at around 10:30 PM, Shantaben alleged that Police Officers, including Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, came to her house, abused her using casteist slurs, and caused injuries to her and her son. They also ransacked her house and took away her husband. Shantaben tried to file a complaint on 7th September 2013, but was unsuccessful. She then filed a complaint before the Magistrate on 13th September 2013.

The Magistrate ordered an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially, the investigating officer submitted a report stating that the allegations of beating were not supported by evidence. However, after a further investigation ordered by the Magistrate under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell, Dahod, submitted a report stating that the offences appeared to have been committed by the accused persons. The Magistrate then took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused on 15th February 2017.

The accused then approached the High Court of Gujarat to quash the FIR and the summons issued by the Magistrate. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, stating that only a Special Court could take cognizance of offences under the Atrocities Act and that the Magistrate lacked the authority to do so. The High Court also noted a delay in filing the complaint and the absence of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) initially directed an investigation based on the complainant’s petition. After the police submitted a summary report stating lack of evidence, the JMFC ordered a further investigation. Subsequently, based on the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s report, the JMFC took cognizance of the offenses and issued summons.

The accused then filed a Special Criminal Application before the High Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the FIR and the order issuing summons. The High Court allowed the application, quashing the FIR and the summons, primarily on the ground that the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under the Atrocities Act after the amendment to Section 14 of the Act.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and its interplay with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, as it stood before the 2016 amendment, stated:

“For the purpose of providing for speedy trial, the State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act.”

The 2016 amendment to Section 14 added a proviso, which states:

“Provided further that the Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act.”

The High Court interpreted the amended Section 14 to mean that only the Special Court could take cognizance of offenses under the Atrocities Act, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

The Supreme Court also considered the following provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 190: Describes the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offenses.
• Section 193: States that a Court of Session cannot take cognizance of any offense as a court of original jurisdiction unless expressly provided by law.
• Section 207: Deals with the supply of documents to the accused before the commencement of the trial.
• Section 209: Deals with the commitment of cases to the Court of Session when the offense is exclusively triable by it.
• Section 460: States that certain irregularities do not vitiate proceedings, including a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offense when not empowered to do so.
• Section 156(3): Deals with the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation.
• Section 173(8): Deals with the power of a Magistrate to order further investigation.
• Section 197: Deals with the requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants.

Arguments

The appellant, Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya, argued that the High Court misinterpreted the amendment to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act. The main points of her argument were:

• The amendment to Section 14 was intended to expedite trials, not to exclude the Magistrate’s power to take cognizance.
• The second proviso to Section 14 should not be read in isolation but in conjunction with the existing provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The amendment does not prohibit the Magistrate from taking cognizance and committing the case to the Special Court. It merely provides an additional option for the Investigating Agency to file the report directly before the Special Court.
• The High Court’s interpretation would mean that an accused could avoid trial for serious offenses merely because the final report was submitted to the Magistrate instead of the Special Court.
• The irregularity of sending a final report to the wrong court is a procedural error that does not vitiate the proceedings, as per Section 460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The law relating to cognizance should relate back to the date of the offense, which in this case was before the amendment to Section 14.
• The High Court’s finding of a two-month delay in lodging the FIR was incorrect. The complainant had attempted to register the FIR on the next day itself and was constrained to file a complaint before the Magistrate due to the accused being police officers.
• The bar under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to acts that are not part of official duty, and the alleged acts in this case were a patent abuse of power.

The State of Gujarat supported the appellant’s arguments.

The respondents, despite being served, did not appear before the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in a case where cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate and thereafter the case is committed to the learned Special Court, the entire criminal proceedings can be said to have been vitiated considering the second proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act, which was inserted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Rattiram and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516 – This case discussed the pre-amendment version of Section 14 of the Atrocities Act and held that a Special Court could not directly take cognizance of offenses without a committal by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court in the present case observed that this judgment led to the amendment of Section 14 of the Atrocities Act.

  Ratio: The Court held that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the committal proceedings, the Magistrate is only required to see whether the offense is exclusively triable by the Court of Session; the limited jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is only to verify the nature of the offenses; after having satisfied of verifying the nature of the offenses that the offenses triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall commit the case to the Court of Sessions; because of restricted role assigned to the Magistrate at the stage of committal under the new Code, the non-compliance with the same and raising of objection in that regard after conviction attracts the applicability of the principles of “failure of justice” and the convict becomes obliged in law to satisfy the Appellate Court that he has been prejudiced and deprived of a fair trial or there has been miscarriage of justice; it would be a totally inapposite and inappropriate to hold that such non-compliance vitiates the trial. (Supreme Court of India)

• State of MP vs. Bhooraji and Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 679 – This case held that if a trial has been conducted by a competent court and a conviction has been recorded, it cannot be set aside merely on the ground that there was no committal proceeding. (Supreme Court of India)
• Moly and Anr. vs State of Kerala (2004) 4 SCC 584 – This case held that a conviction by the Special Court is not sustainable if it has suo motu entertained and taken cognizance of the complaint directly without the case being committed to it. (Supreme Court of India)
• Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 215 – This case also held that a conviction by the Special Court is not sustainable if it has suo motu entertained and taken cognizance of the complaint directly without the case being committed to it. (Supreme Court of India)
• Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar – This case emphasized the importance of speedy trial as a fundamental right. (Supreme Court of India)
• Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu & Kashmir – This case also emphasized the importance of speedy trial as a fundamental right. (Supreme Court of India)
• Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar – This case also emphasized the importance of speedy trial as a fundamental right. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions:

• Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – This section deals with the establishment of Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the purpose of providing speedy trials for offenses under the Act.
• Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section deals with the power of the Magistrate to take cognizance of offenses.
• Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section states that a Court of Session cannot take cognizance of any offense as a court of original jurisdiction unless expressly provided by law.
• Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section deals with the supply of documents to the accused before the commencement of the trial.
• Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section deals with the commitment of cases to the Court of Session when the offense is exclusively triable by it.
• Section 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section states that certain irregularities do not vitiate proceedings, including a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offense when not empowered to do so.
• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section deals with the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation.
• Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section deals with the power of a Magistrate to order further investigation.
• Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – This section deals with the requirement of sanction for prosecution of public servants.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rattiram and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516*: The Court acknowledged that this case led to the amendment of Section 14 of the Atrocities Act.
• State of MP vs. Bhooraji and Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 679*: The Court relied on this case to support the view that a trial should not be vitiated on procedural grounds if there is no failure of justice.
• Moly and Anr. vs State of Kerala (2004) 4 SCC 584*: The Court distinguished this case as it was based on the pre-amendment version of Section 14.
• Vidyadharan vs. State of Kerala (2004) 1 SCC 215*: The Court distinguished this case as it was based on the pre-amendment version of Section 14.
• Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar*: The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of speedy trial.
• Moti Lal Saraf v. State of Jammu & Kashmir*: The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of speedy trial.
• Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar*: The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of speedy trial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Legislative Intent: The Court emphasized that the amendment to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act was intended to expedite trials, not to create a procedural hurdle. The Court noted that the word “only” was conspicuously missing from the second proviso of Section 14.
• Procedural Fairness: The Court highlighted that the Magistrate’s role in committal proceedings is limited, and any irregularity in the cognizance process should not vitiate the trial unless it causes a failure of justice.
• Rights of the Victim: The Court underscored the importance of protecting the rights of victims of atrocities and ensuring that they are not denied justice due to procedural technicalities.
• Practical Considerations: The Court noted that quashing the proceedings would give a premium to the accused and would further delay the trial, which is contrary to the objective of speedy justice.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of the law and its intent, with secondary consideration given to the factual aspects of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that the 2016 amendment to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act does not prevent a Magistrate from taking cognizance of offenses under the Act.
• The Special Court has the power to directly take cognizance of offenses under the Atrocities Act, but this power is not exclusive.
• Procedural irregularities in the cognizance process should not vitiate criminal proceedings unless they cause a failure of justice.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of speedy trial and the protection of the rights of victims of atrocities.
• This case clarifies the interplay between the Atrocities Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not impede the delivery of justice.

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, and restored the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offenses.