STATE OF M.P. versus CHUNNILAL @ CHUNNI SINGH

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 15-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 6 S.C.R. 145 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
CHUNNILAL @ CHUNN! SINGH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2003) 
APRIL 15, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled T:ibes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989/Scheduled Castes and Scheduled C 
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Ss. 3 and 91 
r. 7 - Case under the provisions of the Act and under 
provisions of /PC - Non-investigation of, by competent police 
officer - Effect of - Held : Such investigation in respect of 
offences under the Act is illegal - But when the offences are 
D 
both under /PC and the Act, such investigation qua the 
offences under /PC are not illegal - On facts, since complaint 
was under /PC as also under the Act, entire proceedings not 
liable to be quashed - Proceedings under the Act, alone to 
be quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 376 and 506 - Code 
E 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 4, 397 and 401. 
A complaint was filed alleging offences under 
provisions of IPC as well as under provision of 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Investigation of the case was 
F 
conducted by an officer below the rank of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police. Charges were framed. Revision 
Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings was 
,allowed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. By virtue of enabling power u/s 9 of 
Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 
145 
G -
H 
146 
SUPHEME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A Atrocities) Act, 1989, it is the duty and responsibility of 
the State Government to issue notification conferring 
power of investigation of cases by notified police officer 
not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police 
for different areas in the police districts. Rule 7 of 
B Schedules Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of 
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 provided rank of investigation 
officer to be not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent 
of Police. An officer below that rank cannot act as 
investigating officer. The provisions in Section 9 of tj'le 
c Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4, of Cr.P.C. when 
jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the 
investigation to an offence under Section 3 of the Act by 
an officer not appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and 
invalid. But when the offence complained, are both under 
0 the IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 
of the Act, the investigation which is being made by a 
competent police officer in accordance with the 
provisions of Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed for non-
investigation of the offices u/s. 3 of the Act by a competent 
E police officer. In such a situation the proceedings shall 
proceed in appropriate Court for the offences punishable 
under IPC, notwithstanding investigation and thE': charge-
sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect of 
offence u/s. 3 of the Act for taking cognizanc13 of that 
offence. [Para 6] [150-D-H; 151-A] 
F 
2. In the present case, the accusations related to 
offences under both the Act and IPC. The High Court was 
therefore not justified in quashing the entire proceedings. 
The order of the High Court shall be restricted to the 
G offence u/s. 3 of the Act and not in respect of offences 
punishable under IPC. [Para 7] [151-A-B] 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 943 of 2003. 
• 
• 
.•. 
• 
STATE OF M.P. v. CHUNNILAL@ CHUNNI SINGH 
147 
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.7.2007 of the High 
A 
Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 84/ 
2002. 
C.D. Singh, Adltya Singh, Sunny Chaudhary and V. 
Vardhan for the Appellants. 
8 
K. Sarada Devi for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In this appeal, an interesting 
C 
point has been raised. A learned Single Judge of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court allowed the revision application filed gy th~ 
respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ·~c,c\,leed') quashing 
the order framing charge. 
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
D 
On 6.3.2001 a complaint was made to the Police Station 
, Rampur Gurra by the victim stating that the accused promised 
her that he will marry her and committed sexual intercourse with 
her due to which she was carrying a pregnancy of 7 months. 
E 
But he refused to marry her because she belongs to a lower 
caste. A criminal case was registered for alleged commission 
of off
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.