ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 28-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH, AMITAVA ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] l l S.C.R. 145 
ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2039 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 28. 20 l 7 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Code o,fCriminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing of 
supplementary report filed under s.173 by Investigating Officer -
A 
B 
In the first chargesheet, the appellants were charged for o.ffence 
C 
under !PC - Two years later, on complaint of respondent no.2, the 
SC/ST Commission requested for addition of offence under SC/ST 
Act - After supplementm:v report incorporating charges under SCI 
ST Act was filed, appellants filed petition for quashing the same -
High Court was of the view that the charges cannot be quashed in 
a piecemeal manner - On appeal, held: High Court ought to have 
D 
exercised its jurisdiction under s.482 to secure the ends ofjmtice -
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 
E 
available to him in law - Under s.482, all that the High Court is 
required to examine is whether its intervention is required for 
implemel.lfing 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 
to abuse of the process of law and, therefore, High Court ought to 
F 
have exercised its inherent powers under s.482 to the extent of the 
abuse -
The Supplementary Report filed by the Pol iee, at the 
direction of the Commission, is quashed - SC/ST (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act - s.3(J}(x) - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.323, 504, 506. 
Allowing the appeal, the. Court 
HELD: l.l No external agency can dictate the course of 
investigation .in a criminal case. It is within the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the police. (Para 7] (151-B] 
145 
G 
H 
146 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 I S.C.R. 
R. Sara/a v. T. S. Ve/u & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 459 : [20001 
3 SCR 1- relied on. 
1.2 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. No 
doubt, superior officers of police may exercise their powers under 
Section 36 CrPC in supervising the investigation. In the instant 
case, 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. It is not clear whether respondent no.2 
had made out a case for the intervention of the Commission under 
the Rules of Procedure of National Commission for Scheduled 
Castes. f Para 71[151-C-D] 
2. A perusal of NCR shows that the ingredients under 
Section 3 (l)(x) have not been made out. There was not even a 
whisper of allegation of harassment based on caste. That is why 
the first cbargeshcet was only under Sections 323, 504 and 506 
of the IPC. It is over two years later that the Respondent No. 2 
a11pears to have complained to the Commission. Under Ruic 
7.5.2(vi), the Commission is empowered to conduct an inquiry to 
"whether proper charge sheet has been filed mentioning the 
rele\'ant sections of !PC 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 !aches 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. [Para 8)(152-B-D) 
3. The High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction 
under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is 
no prohibition under law for quashing a chargeshcet 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 
. ISHWAR PRATAP SINGH & ORS. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR 
147 
PRADESH & ANR. 
of process, or otherwise to secure the e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.