Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017
Citation: Ishwar Pratap Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2039 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 6835 of 2015)
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Amitava Roy, J.
Can a National Commission dictate the course of a police investigation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a supplementary chargesheet was filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, based on the directions of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The court held that external agencies cannot dictate the course of a police investigation, thereby quashing the supplementary chargesheet. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Amitava Roy, with Justice Kurian Joseph authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On July 25, 2004, Ram Bahadur, the second respondent, filed a complaint (NCR No. 96/04) at P.S. Motiganj, District Gonda, against the appellants, alleging offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complainant stated that the appellants came to his land, assaulted him, abused him, and threatened to kill him. A chargesheet was filed on September 21, 2004, under these sections of the IPC.

More than two years later, on December 3, 2006, the second respondent made a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The Commission, on December 6, 2006, directed the police to add Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to the charges. This direction was based on the Commission’s view that the alleged insults and intimidation were intended to humiliate the complainant, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste.

The police then filed a supplementary chargesheet on April 26, 2007, adding Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants challenged this supplementary chargesheet, arguing that the Commission’s direction was an external interference in the police investigation.

Timeline

Date Event
25 July 2004 Respondent No. 2 filed NCR No. 96/04 against the appellants at P.S. Motiganj, District Gonda, for offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
21 September 2004 Police filed the first chargesheet against the appellants under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
3 December 2006 Respondent No. 2 made a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
6 December 2006 The National Commission for Scheduled Castes directed the police to add Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to the charges.
26 April 2007 Police filed a supplementary chargesheet, adding Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
13 April 2007 The High Court stayed the arrest of the appellants in Writ Petition No. 2330 (M/B) of 2007.
22 July 2015 The High Court declined to quash the supplementary chargesheet in Crl. Misc. Petition No.1392 of 2008.
28 November 2017 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the supplementary chargesheet.

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially faced charges under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC, for which a chargesheet was filed. Subsequently, on the direction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the police filed a supplementary chargesheet adding Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellants filed a Writ Petition No. 2330 (M/B) of 2007 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which stayed their arrest.

After the supplementary chargesheet was filed, the appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash the chargesheet. The High Court dismissed this petition, stating that charges cannot be quashed in a piecemeal manner. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provisions at the heart of this case are:

  • Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section states that “Whoever, not being a member of a 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.”
  • Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section provides the High Court with inherent powers to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the CrPC, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Addresses Juvenile Status: Devilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (25 February 2021)

The Supreme Court also considered the powers of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, particularly Rule 7.5.2(vi) of its Rules of Procedure, which empowers the Commission to conduct an inquiry to determine “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.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

  • The appellants argued that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes had no authority to direct the police to add Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They contended that the Commission’s direction was an external interference in the police investigation, which is not permissible under the law.
  • They submitted that the initial complaint (NCR No. 96/04) did not contain any allegations of harassment based on caste. The charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added more than two years after the initial chargesheet, based solely on the Commission’s direction.
  • The appellants further argued that the High Court erred in holding that the chargesheet could not be quashed in a piecemeal manner. They asserted that they were aggrieved by the specific charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and that the High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash this charge.

Respondent/State’s Arguments:

  • The State argued that the police had the right to file a supplementary chargesheet based on the directions of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. They contended that the Commission had the power to ensure that proper charges were framed, including those under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
  • The State also argued that the High Court was correct in not quashing the chargesheet in a piecemeal manner. They contended that the entire chargesheet should be considered as a whole and that the High Court had no reason to interfere with the investigation.

Innovation of the Argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the direction by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes was an external interference in the police investigation and therefore, the supplementary chargesheet should be quashed. This argument highlighted the importance of maintaining the independence of police investigations.

Submissions Table

Main Submission Sub-Submission (Appellants) Sub-Submission (Respondent/State)
Interference in Police Investigation ✓ The National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot dictate the course of police investigation. The direction to add Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was an external interference. ✓ The police had the right to file a supplementary chargesheet based on the Commission’s directions. The Commission has the power to ensure proper charges are framed.
Lack of Caste-Based Allegations ✓ The initial complaint did not contain any allegations of harassment based on caste. The SC/ST Act charges were added more than two years later, solely based on the Commission’s direction.
Quashing of Chargesheet ✓ The High Court erred in holding that the chargesheet could not be quashed in a piecemeal manner. The appellants were aggrieved by the specific charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. ✓ The entire chargesheet should be considered as a whole, and the High Court had no reason to interfere with the investigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

  1. Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes can direct the police to add charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in a case where the initial chargesheet did not include such charges.
  2. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that a chargesheet cannot be quashed in a piecemeal manner under Section 482 of the CrPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Whether the National Commission for Scheduled Castes can direct the police to add charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that the Commission cannot dictate the course of police investigation. The Commission’s role is to point out lapses in the investigation, not to direct the police to add specific charges.
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that a chargesheet cannot be quashed in a piecemeal manner under Section 482 of the CrPC. The Court held that there is no prohibition under law for quashing a chargesheet in part. The High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash specific charges that are an abuse of the process of law.
See also  Supreme Court quashes dowry harassment charges against in-laws due to lack of specific evidence: Mirza Iqbal vs. State of UP (2021)

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

  • R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu & Others (2000) 4 SCC 459: This case established that the police have the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate a criminal case, and no external agency can dictate the course of investigation.
  • Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others (2014) 2 SCC 532: This case clarified that while superior courts may monitor an investigation in exceptional situations, this is not the same as supervising the investigation.
  • Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): This section allows superior officers of police to exercise their powers in supervising the investigation.
  • Rule 7.5.2(vi) of the Rules of Procedure of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes: This rule empowers the Commission to conduct an inquiry to determine if a proper charge sheet has been filed, but it does not give the Commission the power to dictate the course of the investigation.

Authorities Table

Authority Court How the Authority was Considered
R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu & Others (2000) 4 SCC 459 Supreme Court of India Followed to establish that police have exclusive jurisdiction over investigation and no external agency can dictate its course.
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others (2014) 2 SCC 532 Supreme Court of India Followed to clarify the distinction between monitoring and supervising an investigation by superior courts.
Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Statute Mentioned to highlight the powers of superior police officers to supervise investigations.
Rule 7.5.2(vi) of the Rules of Procedure of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes Rule Interpreted to clarify that the Commission can inquire into the filing of charge sheets but cannot dictate the course of investigation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the supplementary report filed by the police at the direction of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The Court held that the Commission’s direction was an external interference in the police investigation, which is not permissible under the law. The Court also clarified that a chargesheet can be quashed in part if there is an abuse of the process of law.

Treatment of Submissions

Submission How the Court Treated the Submission
The National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot dictate the course of police investigation. The Court agreed, holding that the Commission’s direction was an external interference in the police investigation, which is not permissible under the law.
The initial complaint did not contain any allegations of harassment based on caste. The Court noted that the initial complaint did not mention any caste-based harassment, and the charges under the SC/ST Act were added much later based on the Commission’s direction.
The High Court erred in holding that the chargesheet could not be quashed in a piecemeal manner. The Court agreed, clarifying that a chargesheet can be quashed in part if there is an abuse of the process of law.

Treatment of Authorities

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

  • R. Sarala v. T.S. Velu & Others (2000) 4 SCC 459:* The court relied on this case to reiterate that the police have the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate a criminal case, and no external agency can dictate the course of investigation.
  • Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary And Others (2014) 2 SCC 532:* This case was used to clarify that while superior courts may monitor an investigation in exceptional situations, this is not the same as supervising the investigation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that the police have the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate criminal cases, and no external agency can dictate the course of investigation. The Court emphasized that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes could only point out lapses in the investigation, but it could not direct the police to add specific charges. The Court also considered the fact that the initial complaint did not contain any allegations of harassment based on caste, and the charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were added much later based on the Commission’s direction.

The Court was also influenced by the need to prevent abuse of the process of law. It held that the High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the supplementary chargesheet to prevent such abuse. The Court clarified that a chargesheet can be quashed in part if there is an abuse of the process of law.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Reason Percentage
Police’s Exclusive Jurisdiction over Investigation 40%
No External Agency Can Dictate Investigation 30%
Initial Complaint Lacked Caste-Based Allegations 20%
Prevention of Abuse of Process of Law 10%
See also  Supreme Court quashes conviction in corruption case citing double jeopardy: T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala (2022)

Ratio Table

Category Percentage
Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) 30%
Law (Consideration of legal aspects) 70%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Can the National Commission for Scheduled Castes direct the police to add charges under the SC/ST Act?
↓
Police have exclusive jurisdiction over investigation.
↓
No external agency can dictate the course of investigation.
↓
The Commission can only point out lapses, not direct charges.
↓
Supplementary chargesheet based on Commission’s direction is invalid.
↓
Issue: Can a chargesheet be quashed in part?
↓
Section 482 CrPC allows for quashing to prevent abuse of process.
↓
Chargesheet can be quashed in part to prevent abuse.

The Supreme Court held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot dictate the course of a police investigation. The Court reasoned that the police have the exclusive jurisdiction to investigate criminal cases, and no external agency can direct them on how to conduct the investigation or what charges to include. The Court also held that the High Court has the power to quash a chargesheet in part under Section 482 of the CrPC if there is an abuse of the process of law.

Key Takeaways

  • The National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot direct the police to add charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, or any other law.
  • Police investigations must be free from external interference.
  • High Courts have the power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash a chargesheet in part to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court clarified that the order passed by the 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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the police have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal investigations, and no external agency, including the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, can dictate the course of such investigations. This judgment clarifies that while the Commission can point out lapses in investigations, it cannot direct the police to add specific charges. Additionally, the judgment clarifies that chargesheets can be quashed in part under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law, which is a departure from the High Court’s position.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the limits of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes’ powers regarding police investigations. The Court emphasized the principle that police investigations must be free from external interference and that the High Court has the power to quash a chargesheet in part to prevent abuse of the process of law. This decision reinforces the independence of police investigations and provides crucial guidance on the interpretation of Section 482 of the CrPC.

Category

  • Criminal Law
    • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
      • Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
    • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
      • Section 3(1)(x), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
  • Constitutional Law
    • National Commission for Scheduled Castes

FAQ

Q: Can the National Commission for Scheduled Castes direct the police to add charges under the SC/ST Act?
A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes cannot direct the police to add charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, or any other law. The Commission can only point out lapses in the investigation, but it cannot dictate the course of the investigation.

Q: What does the Supreme Court mean by “external interference” in a police investigation?
A: “External interference” refers to any direction or influence from an external agency that compromises the independence of the police investigation. In this case, the direction from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes to add specific charges was considered an external interference.

Q: Can a High Court quash a chargesheet in part?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that a High Court can quash a chargesheet in part under Section 482 of the CrPC if there is an abuse of the process of law. This means that if a specific charge is deemed to be an abuse of the process, the High Court can quash that particular charge without quashing the entire chargesheet.

Q: What should I do if I feel that the police investigation against me is being influenced by an external agency?
A: If you believe that a police investigation is being unduly influenced by an external agency, you can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to seek relief. The High Court has the power to intervene and ensure that the investigation is conducted fairly and without external interference.

Source: Ishwar Pratap Singh vs State of UP