Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1393-1394 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.2963-2964/2010)
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
RAM ASHREY & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Permission to file special leave petition is
granted.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
These appeals have been preferred against the
th
judgment and orders dated 26 February, 2010 and
JUDGMENT
th
17 August, 2009 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in pending
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2009 of 2009 seeking
quashing of the FIR Case Crime No.194/2005 as also
the consequential proceedings pending before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar. The
relevant facts have been noticed in the impugned
orders and, therefore, it is not necessary to repeat
the same herein. However, it is necessary to notice
Page 1
2
certain crucial dates which led to filing of the
petition by respondent No.1 under Section 482 of the
rd
Code of Criminal Procedure. On 3 May, 2005,
respondent No.2 (Ram Shakal) made a complaint that
respondent No.1 (Ram Ashrey Yadav) attempted to take
forcible possession of the Abadi land which was the
th
subject matter of a civil suit. On 30 April, 2005,
while attempting to take forcible possession of
certain piece of land, respondent No.1, along with
some other persons, abused respondent No.2. They also
beat him up and threatened to kill him. According to
the complaint, respondent No.1 and his party entered
the house of respondent No.2 and inflicted injuries
with intention to kill his daughter-in-law. Assuming
her to be dead, the attacking party left the house of
respondent No.2. When respondent No.2 along with his
JUDGMENT
injured daughter-in-law went to the local Police
Station to lodge an FIR of the incident, no action
was taken by the police. Rather, the complainant
along with his daughter-in-law, were forced to remain
seated at the Police Station for quite some time. He,
therefore, made a written complaint to appellant No.2
(Mr. Anil Sant) for initiation of appropriate action
against respondent No.1.
Page 2
3
Appellant No.2, at the relevant time
was posted as Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
U.P. Acting on the complaint made by respondent
th
No.2, appellant No.2 on 6 May, 2005 forwarded the
same to Shri K. Satyanarain, Superintendent of
Police, Ambedkar Nagar with the following
observations:
“Thus, a copy of the application is being
enclosed with the request that the First
Information Report may be lodged and a
thorough investigation in the matter be
conducted by an officer not below the rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police, so that
effective action may be taken and the
Government may also be informed.”
It appears that an FIR was actually
JUDGMENT
th
registered on 27 October, 2005. It further appears
that in the meantime, respondent No.2 filed a
complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
th
Ambedkar Nagar on 16 May, 2005. In the complaint
proceedings, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
th
on 17 August, 2005 directed registration of an FIR
with a further direction to the police to act in
accordance with law. Aggrieved by the aforesaid
Page 3
4
order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
respondent No.1 challenged the same by filing
Criminal Misc. Revision No.191 of 2005 in the Court
of District & Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar.
th
By order dated 5 September, 2005, the
Sessions Judge stayed the operation of the order
th
passed by the learned Magistrate on 17 August, 2005
th
and ultimately on 15 February, 2007, Criminal Misc.
Revision No.191 of 2005 was allowed and the order
th nd
dated 17 August, 2005/2 September,2005 directing
the registration of the FIR was quashed. In view of
the order passed by the Sessions Judge, no FIR was
registered pursuant to the direction issued by the
learned Magistrate. However, it appears that on the
th
basis of the letter dated 6 May, 2005, Circle
JUDGMENT
Officer, Jabalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, on
st
21 October, 2005 directed the Station Officer,
Malipur, to register the case against respondent
No.1 and others. A First Information Report (FIR)
being Case Crime No.194 of 2005 under Sections 323,
324, 504, 506 of IPA and Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the
Page 4
5
th
Act”) came to be registered on 27 October, 2005.
Subsequently, upon investigation, it appears that
th
the police also filed charge-sheet on 27 May, 2007
in the Court of learned Magistrate. The filing of
the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings have
been challenged by the appellants by way of Criminal
Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. When the
matter was taken up for preliminary hearing, the
th
High Court passed an interim order on 26 February,
2010 and the petition was directed to be listed on
nd
2 April, 2010.
It is this interim order that is challenged
in the present special leave petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
JUDGMENT
parties.
Mr.Dash, learned senior counsel for the
appellants 1 and 2 has pointed out that in the
impugned order the conduct of appellant No.2 was
severely criticized by the High Court. It was
observed that appellant No.2 had written a letter
th
dated 6 May, 2005 ignoring the consideration that
such a letter would play havoc with the liberty and
Page 5
6
character of the person who is otherwise not
involved in the crime. The High Court also observed:
“The conduct of such officer should be
taken into consideration by the Court as
reckless, unmindful and being without
jurisdiction and also with a view to harass
the innocent citizens/petitioners under his
authority of high rank. The higher officer
the more responsibility lies on the
shoulder of the said officer and he should
not act casually, but with a sense of deep
responsibility.”
The High Court further observed as follows:
“Therefore, in the circumstances of the
case and with a view to curb such
incidents, so that such letters may not be
JUDGMENT
written in future and also that people may
be certain in their mind as to what is the
proper forum to approach and in order to
reduce the administrative chaos, it is
necessary that a censure entry be recorded
in the character roll of the officer for
writing such letter without authority of
law. The Court, therefore, directs the
Chief Secretary to record a censure entry
in the character roll of the officer.”
Page 6
7
Mr. Dash, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of appellant Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the
officer – appellant No.2 herein, has been
unnecessarily castigated by the High Court as he was
unaware of the orders passed by the Sessions Judge
th
on 5 September, 2005. Furthermore, the said
officer has not played any role other than writing
th
the letter dated 6 May, 2005 forwarding the
complaint made by respondent No.2 against respondent
No.1 to the competent authority for further action
in accordance with law.
We are of the considered opinion that in the
facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court
was not justified in recording such scathing remarks
JUDGMENT
about the action taken by appellant No.2 on the
complaint made by respondent No.2. It must be
remembered that the petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure is still pending
before the High Court. In our opinion, the High
Court unnecessarily proceeded to record a conclusion
that the respondent No.1 is an innocent person not
involved in any crime. Such a finding could not have
Page 7
8
been recorded at an interim stage. The petition
under Section 482 was yet to be heard on merits, and
nd
was listed for hearing on 2 April, 2010.
Having perused the relevant provisions of the
Act and the rules, we are satisfied that the action
taken by appellant No.2 was within the scope of Rule
5(3) and Rule 6(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995. A perusal of the aforesaid rules clearly
indicates that it was not even necessary for
appellant No.2 to be holding the position which he
was actually holding, for forwarding the complaint
made by respondent No.2 against respondent No.1.
Any person who has knowledge about the atrocities
being committed which would constitute an offence
JUDGMENT
under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act would be within
his right to forward the complaint to the
appropriate authority requesting that action be
taken against the alleged offender in accordance
with law. In such circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the High Court was not justified in
making the scathing remarks against the officer.
We, therefore, direct that the adverse remarks
Page 8
9
recorded by the High Court including the direction
to make an entry of “censure” in the service record
of appellant No.2, be expunged. The impugned orders
are accordingly set aside and the appeals are
allowed.
Before we part with the case, we make it
clear that the petition filed by respondent No.1
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
shall be decided on its own merits, strictly in
accordance with law, without being influenced by any
observations made by this Court.
........................J
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
JUDGMENT
......................J
(H.L. GOKHALE)
New Delhi;
September 11, 2012.
Page 9