Uttar Pradesh | HC: Filing chargesheet in each case filed under SC/ST Act not must

In the order issued on Thursday, Justices Rajan Roy and Sanjay Kumar Pachori said, “…aforesaid provisions do not necessarily mandate the Investigating Officer to file a chargesheet in each and every case where an FIR has been lodged alleging commission of offence under the (SC/ST) Act 1989, but it only enjoins upon him to file such chargesheet where, based on evidence collected during investigation, the offence is made out. Relief No. 1 is accordingly rejected.”

“Our understanding and interpretation of this provision as mentioned hereinabove is the correct understanding of law and the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived,” the court added.

“Statutory provisions cannot be read, understood and applied in an unreasonable manner so as to lead to absurdity and/or to violate fundamental rights of a citizen,” the court said.

The petitioner sought that the court declare Section 4(2)(e) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Rules) 1995 ultra vires as “the said provisions necessarily direct for filing of chargesheet”. Section 4(2)(e) of the SC/ST Act reads, “to conduct the investigation and file chargesheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing; to correctly prepare, frame and translate any document or electronic record.”

Rule 7(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Rules) 1995 reads, “The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule (1) shall complete the investigation on top priority, submit the report to the Superintendent of Police, who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police or the Commissioner of Police of the state government, and the officer in-charge of the police station  concerned shall file a charge sheet in the Special Court or the Special Court within a period of sixty days (the period is inclusive of investigation and filing of chargesheet).”

The counsel for the petitioner submitted in court “that the language used in the aforesaid two provisions leaves no scope for the Investigating Officer to file a final report in a case where no offence is made out under the Act 1989”.

“…meaning thereby he has necessarily and mandatorily to file a chargesheet in every case in which an FIR is lodged alleging an offence under the Act… the word used in the aforesaid provisions is ‘file chargesheet’ and not ‘file a police report…,” the lawyer submitted in court.

The second relief sought by the petition was to quash an order passed by the Exclusive Special Court, Pratapgarh on March 2 last year ordering an FIR. The contention of the petitioner “was that the Exclusive Special Court/Special Court, Pratapgarh does not have power to order lodging of FIR”.

On this, the court said, “In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Special Court dated 02.03.2022 is not without jurisdiction. We are of the opinion that the Relief No. 2 is not liable to be granted.”

The third relief sought by the petitioner was deletion of the IPC sections 376-D (gangrape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) from the FIR registered at a police station in Pratapgarh district. The FIR under had also invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act.

“…we see no reason to grant Relief No. 3… All this is of course without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the pending investigation or before the trial court, if the occasion so arises,” the court said and dismissed the petition.