XYZ versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 05-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
XYZ
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS
(Criminal Appeal No 1184 of 2022)
AUGUST 05, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s.156(3) – “may” –
Commission of cognizable offence alleged, need for police
investigation – Exercise of jurisdiction u/s.156(3) – Sexual
harassment alleged by appellant against second respondent (Vice-
Chancellor of the Institute at the material time) – No action having
been taken by Police on her complaint, the appellant eventually,
moved the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) u/s.156(3) – JMFC
though concluded that, prima facie, “occurrence of the offence by
the accused persons” was “shown”, however, held that the case
could be decided without collecting evidence from the police and it
did not appear just and proper to act on the case filed on behalf of
the appellant u/s.156(3) – JMFC proceeded to treat the complaint
as a complaint – Appellant filed application u/s.482, CrPC –
Dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: It is true that the use
of the word “may” implies that the Magistrate has discretion in
directing the police to investigate or proceeding with the case as a
complaint case – But this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily
and must be guided by judicial reasoning – In the present case, the
appellant had also sought the production of DVRs containing the
audio-video recording of the CCTV footage of the second
respondent’s chamber – As a matter of fact, the Institute itself had
addressed communications to him directing the production of the
recordings, noting that these recordings were handed over on his
oral direction by the then Registrar of the Institute as he was the
Vice-Chancellor – Due to the lack of response despite multiple
attempts, the Institute even filed a complaint for registering an FIR
against the second respondent for theft of the DVRs – Therefore, in
such cases, where not only does the Magistrate find the commission
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 163
163
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
of a cognizable offence alleged on a prima facie reading of the
complaint but also such facts are brought to the Magistrate’s notice
which clearly indicate the need for police investigation, the
discretion granted in s.156(3) can only be read as it being the
Magistrate’s duty to order the police to investigate – In cases such
as the present, wherein, there is alleged to be documentary or other
evidence in the physical possession of the accused or other
individuals which the police would be best placed to investigate
and retrieve using its powers under the CrPC, the matter ought to
be sent to the police for investigation – JMFC ought to have
exercised jurisdiction u/s.156(3) to direct the police to investigate –
Discretion conferred upon the Magistrate by s.156(3) must be
exercised in a judicious manner – Impugned judgement of High
Court set aside – JMFC Gwalior shall in terms of the observations
contained, order an investigation by the police u/s.156(3) – Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and
Redressal) Act 2013 – Crime Against Women.
FIR – Sexual harassment alleged by appellant – No action
taken by Police on her complaint – Held: Whether or not the offence
complained of is made out is to be determined at the stage of
investigation and / or trial – If, after conducting the investigation,
the police find that no offence is made out, they may file a B Report
u/s.173 CrPC – However, it is not open to them to decline to register
an FIR – The law in this regard is clear- police officers cannot
exercise any discretion when they receive a complaint which discloses
the commission of a cognizable offence – Crime Against Women.
Code of Criminal Procedure,  1973 – s.156(3) – Discretion
granted to a Magistrate vis-à-vis the exercise of powers u/s.156(3)
– Discussed.
Crime Against Women – Duty of courts dealing with
complainants of sexual harassment and sexual assault in a sensitive
manner, reiterated – Duty and responsibility of trial courts to deal
with the aggrieved persons before them in appropriate manner,
enumerated.
Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2
SCC 1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713 – followed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
165
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P (2008) 2 SCC 409 : [2007]
12 SCR 1100; Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric
Power Construction Corpn. (2010) 8 SCC 206 : [2010]
9 SCR 278; Aparna Bhat v State of Madhya Pradesh
2021 SCC OnLine SC 230; State of Maharasht

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