SANJAY DUBEY versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 11-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 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
939
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 939
939
SANJAY DUBEY
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1466 of 2023)
MAY 11, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Articles 226, 227 – Power of High
Court to issue additional directions/orders in bail pleas – FIR was
filed against accused u/ss.376, 506, IPC; POCSO Act, SCST Act
and IT Act –FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant-
Inspectorwith a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be
undertaken however, the DNA examination was not carried out –
In the meantime, the accused filed his bail plea – High Courtcalled
for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith –
Appellant was found guilty of dereliction of dutyand direction
wasissued for holding departmental proceedings against him – On
appeal, held: High Court is a Constitutional Courtpossessing wide
repertoire of powers – It has original, appellate and suo motu powers
u/Articles 226 and 227 which are meant for taking care of situations
where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are
required in the interest of justice – However, in the present case,
since the Superintendent of Police, the officer superior to the
appellant had himself stated that he would take action against the
appellant and was initiating enquiry for imposition of major penalty,
therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to further issue
direction for action against the appellant –However,since the case
is sensitive and prima facie there was callousness on the part of the
police officer(s) concerned, including the appellant, in conducting
a proper investigation,on facts, the impugned judgment not interfered
with–Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439 – Penal Code, 1860
–ss.376, 506 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012– Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Information Technology Act, 2000.
Administration of Justice–Administration of CriminalJustice
–Significance of investigation – Discussed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
940
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Practice and Procedure – Judgments – Interpretation of –
Held: Judgments are not to be read as Euclid’s theorems –They are
not to be construed as statutes andspecific cases are authorities
only for what they actually decide.
Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v State of Gujarat
(2019) 14 SCC 522; State Represented by Inspector of
Police v M Murugesan (2020) 15 SCC 251 : [2020] 2
SCR 553 – distinguished.
B S Hari Commandant v Union of India 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 413; Sidhartha Vashist v State (NCT of
Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 : [2010] 4 SCR 103; Manoj v
State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353; State of
Gujarat v Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108 : [2014] 1
SCR 197– relied on.
Sreenivasa General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh,
(1983) 4 SCC 353 : [1983] 3 SCR 843; M/s Amar Nath
Om Prakash v State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 345 :
[1985] 2 SCR 72; BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited
(2020) 4 SCC 234 : [2019] 17 SCR 742; Chintels India
Limited v Bhayana Builders Private Limited (2021) 4
SCC 602– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 2 SCR 553
distinguished
Para 8
[1983] 3 SCR 843
referred to
Para 18
[1985] 2 SCR 72
referred to
Para 18
[2019] 17 SCR 742
referred to
Para 18
[2010] 4 SCR 103
relied on
Para 22
[2014] 1 SCR 197
relied on
Para 23
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1466 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.09.2022 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRC No. 43998 of
2022.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
941
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Awanish Kumar, Siddharth Kumar
Sharma, S. K. Pandey, Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Anshul Rai, M/
s. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mukul Singh, A.A.G., Mrinal Gopal Elker, Rajan Chourasia, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order
dated 21.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”)
rendered by a learned Single Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
at Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in MCRC No.
43998 of 2022, in which a finding, albeit prima facie, of being guilty of
dereliction of duty against the appellant has been recorded. Further, it
was observed in the Impugned Judgment that the appellant is not fit to
be assigned any impor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.