PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 10-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(Writ Petition (C)  No. 1015 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 10, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.18A – Challenge to – Petitioners challenged
s.18A which was enacted owing to the judgment of Supreme Court
in Dr. Subhash Kashinath case reported as [2018] 4 SCR 877, mainly
because of direction nos.(iii) to (v) contained in para 83 inter alia
w.r.t holding preliminary inquiry for registration of FIR, necessity
to obtain approval of the appointing authority concerning arrest of
a public servant and of the SSP in other cases – Union of India
filed review petitions – Allowed – Direction nos. (iii) to (v) recalled
– Held: Per Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran, JJ. – Provisions made
in s.18A are rendered of academic use as they were enacted to take
care of mandate issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath case which no more
prevails – A preliminary inquiry is permissible only in the
circumstances as per law laid down by Constitution Bench in Lalita
Kumari case – Further, concerning the applicability of provisions
of s.438, CrPC, it shall not apply to the cases under 1989 Act –
However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case under
1989 Act, the bar created by s.18 & 18A(i) shall not apply – In
exceptional cases, power can be exercised u/s.482, CrPC for
quashing cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled
parameters, as observed in the review petitions – Per S. Ravindra
Bhat, J. (Supplementing) Any interference with the provisions of
the Act, particularly with respect to the amendments precluding
preliminary enquiry, or provisions which remove the bar against
arrest of public servants accused of offences punishable under the
Act, would not be a positive step – Various reports, official data
including those released by the National Crime Records Bureau,
paint a dismal picture – While considering any application seeking
 [2020] 2 S.C.R. 727
727
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
pre-arrest bail, the High Court has to balance the two interests: i.e.
that the power is not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that
u/s.438, CrPC, but that it is used sparingly and such orders made
in very exceptional cases where no prima facie offence is made out
as shown in the FIR – Further also, if such orders are not made in
those classes of cases, the result would inevitably be miscarriage of
justice or abuse of process of law – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amednment Act, 2018 – Constitution
of India – Arts.14, 15, 17, 21, 23 & 24 – Code of Criminal Procdure,
1973 – ss.438 and 482 – Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 –
Civil Rights Act, 1955.
Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: PER ARUN MISHRA, J. (for himself and VINEET
SARAN, J.)
Concerning the provisions contained in section 18A, with
respect to preliminary inquiry for registration of FIR, the general
directions (iii) and (iv) issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath’s case
have already been recalled. A preliminary inquiry is permissible
only in the circumstances as per the law laid down by a
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case, shall
hold good as explained in the order passed by Supreme Court in
the review petitions on 1.10.2019 and the amended provisions of
section 18A have to be interpreted accordingly. The provisions
which have been made in section 18A are rendered of academic
use as they were enacted to take care of mandate issued in Dr.
Subhash Kashinath which no more prevails. The provisions were
already in section 18 of the Act with respect to anticipatory bail.
Concerning the applicability of provisions of section 438 Cr.PC,
it shall not apply to the cases under Act of 1989. However, if the
complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability
of the provisions of the Act of 1989, the bar created by section 18
and 18A (i) shall not apply. This aspect has been clarified while
deciding the review petitions. The court can, in exceptional cases,
exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the cases
to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already
observed while deciding the review petitions. The challenge to
the provisions has been rendered academic. [Paras 8-11][750-
H; 751-A-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
729
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr. (2018) 6 SCC 454 : [2018] 4 SCR
877; S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.