STATE OF M.P.versusCHUNNILAL @ CHUNNI SINGH

                   [2009) 6 S.C.R. 145

                     STATE OF M.P.                           A
                             v.
             CHUNNILAL @ CHUNN! SINGH
            (Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2003)
                     APRIL 15, 2009
                                                             B
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
                    GANGULY, JJ.]

      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.
                                                             G -
    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
                                                             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]

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 943 of 2003.
H
            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 offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian
          Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(xii) of
          Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
          Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short the 'Act'). A First Information     F
          Report was registered.

               According to the appellant, since at that time nobody had
          joined the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police ,
          Hoshangabad Additional Superintendent of Police authorized          G
      •
          S.I. B.S. Parihar to investigate into the case who undertook
          inspection and recorded the statement of the witnesses. After
          due verification of the case by the Additional Superintendent
          of Police challan was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
          Hoshangabad. The accused filed objections and written reply         H
    148     SUPr<EME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A was filed by the investigating officer. The basic grievance was
  that the investigating officer was not authorized to make
  investigation in the absence of any authorization by the
  competent authority. The stand taken before the High Court by
  the investigating officer was that he had been authorized by the
B competent authority i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police.
  The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to
  the Court of Sessions. Here again, the only objection of the
  accused was that the investigation was carried out by an officer
  who was not competent to do so. Learned Special Judge,
C (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Hoshangabad
  passed an order framing the charges against the accused who
  filed a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of the
  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') for
  quashing the entire criminal proceedings by revision of the
  order of learned special judge. A reply was filed by the _
0
  prosecuting agency contending that the investigation was
  carried out under the supervision of Additional Superintendent
  of Police since the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police
  was lying vacant for about 4 months. After verification of the
  statements of the prosecution witnesses and on being satisfied
E with the materia:s collected during investigation the Additional
  Superintendent of Police prepared the challan and filed the
  same before the High Court. No prejudice was caused to the
  accused. The High Court quashed the entire proceedings.

F        3. Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
    submitted that the approach of the High Court was clearly
    erroneous. The offence related to both under the IPC and the
    Act. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the
    entire proceedings.
G       4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand __
    supported the judgment.
         5. For appreciating the rival submissions, reference needs
    to be made to Section 9 of the Act and Rule· 7 of Scheduled
H
      STATE OF M.P. v. CHUNNILAL@ CHUNN! SINGH                     149
                [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
    Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,         A
    1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

        Section 9 of the act and Rule 7 of the Rules read as
        follows:

        "Section 9-Conferment of powers.-- (1) Notwithstanding            B
        anything contained in the code or in any other provision of
        this Act, the State Government may, if it considers it
        necessary or .expedient so to so,-

        (a) for the prevention of coping with any offence under this      c
        act, or

        (b) for any case of class of group of cases under this Act,

        in any district or part thereof, confer, by notification in the
        Official Gazette, on any officer of the State Government the      D
        powers exercisable by a police officer under the Code in
        such district or part thereof or, as the case may be, for such
        case or class or group of cases, and in particulars, the
        powers of arrest, investigation and prosecution of persons
        before any Special Court.                                         E

        (2) All officers of police and all other officers of Government
        shall assist the officer referred to in Sub-section (1) in the
        execution of the provisions of this Act or any rule, scheme
        or order made thereunder.
                                                                          F
        (3) The provisions of the Code shall, so far as may be,
        apply to the exercise of the powers by an officer under Sub-
        section (1).

        Rule 7-/nvestigating Officer,-- (1) An offence committed          G
        under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not
•       below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The
        Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State
        Government/Director-General of Police Superintendent of
        Police after taking into account his post experience sense        H
    150       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 6 S.C.R.


A         of ability and justice to perceive the implications: of the
          case and investigate it along with right lines within the
          shortest possible time.

          (2) The Investigating Officer so appointed under Sub-rule
          (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority within
B
          thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of
          Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to
          the Director General of Police of the State Government.

          (3) The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary
c         to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the
          Officer-in-charge of Prosecution and the Director-General
          of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the
          position of all investigation done by the Investigating
          Officer."
D
       6. By virtue of its enabling power 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
E for different areas in the police districts. Rule 7 of the Rules
  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 the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when
  jointly read lead to an irresistible conclusion that the
F 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 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
G in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be
  quashed for non investigation of the offence under Section 3
  of the Act by a competent police officer. In such a situation the
  proceedings shall proceed in appropriate Court for the offences
  punishable under the IPC notwithstanding investigation and the
H charge sheet being not liable to be accepted only in respect
  STATE OF M.P. v. CHUNNILAL@ CHUNNI SINGH                     151
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
of offence under Section 3 of the Act for taking cognizance of        A
that offence.

     7. In the present case there is no denial of the fact that the
accusations related to offences under both the Act and the
l.P.C. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing
                                                                      8
the entire proceedings. The order shall be restricted to the
offence under Section 3 of the Act and not in respect of offences
punishable under the IPC.

     8. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
                                                                      c
K.K.T.                                    Appeal partly allowed.