Criminal Law – Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petition seeking mandamus for re-investigation / further investigation – Two incidents of alleged brutal massacre of tribals in three villages in the State of Chhattisgarh – Case of the writ petitioners that the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the activists of Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by the Chhattisgarh Government) and the Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF and the CoBRA Battalions were responsible for the alleged massacre – Whether any case was made out by the writ petitioners for investigation of the two incidents through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Held: The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution – The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation – No one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency – An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice – The power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances” – On facts, the writ petition gives an impression that proper investigation was not being done and, therefore, the same should be handed over to the CBI – However, the fact is that the investigation had been already carried out and charge sheets had been filed – In the overall view of the matter, it was clear that no case, worth the name, has been made out by the writ petitioners for any further investigation much less through an independent agency to be appointed by the Supreme Court.
Criminal Law – Investigation – The power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances”.
Criminal Law – CrPC does not define what constitutes the making of a “charge” of an offence or what amounts to the “institution of criminal proceedings” – The statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.340 r/w s.195 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191 and 193 – Perjury – Offence of making false affidavit and giving false evidence – Held: There are two conditions, on fulfilment of which, a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a court – The first condition being that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the court and, secondly, in the opinion of the court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him – There should be something deliberate - a statement should be made deliberately and consciously which is found to be false as a result of comparing it with unimpeachable evidence, documentary or otherwise – Before initiating proceedings for perjury, the court concerned has to consider whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to sanction such prosecution – Before sanctioning prosecution there must be a prima facie case of a falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 211 – Essential ingredients for invoking s.211 – Discussed.
Dismissing the writ petition and disposing of the Interlocutory application, the Court
HELD:1.1 In an appropriate case when the Court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in a proper direction, and in order to do complete justice in the case and if high police officials are involved in the alleged crime, the Court may be justified in such circumstances to handover the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI. Even after the filing of the charge sheet the court is empowered in an appropriate case to handover the investigation to an independent agency like the CBI. The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution of India qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution. Though a satisfaction of want of proper, fair, impartial and effective investigation eroding its credence and reliability is the precondition for a direction for further investigation or reinvestigation, submission of the charge sheet ipso facto or the pendency of the trial can, by no means, be a prohibitive impediment. The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties. The prime concern and the endeavour of the court of law should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts which ought to be unearthed through a committed, resolved and a competent investigating agency. [Paras 46, 47][774-B-D, F-H]
1.2. No one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice. [Para 52][776-B-C]
1.3. The power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances”. [Para 53][776-D]
2.1 In the instant case, all the FIRs were investigated by the concerned investigating agencies and, at the end of the investigation, charge sheets came to be filed in different courts of the State of Chhattisgarh for the offences under the IPC like murder, dacoity,etc. [Para 55][776-F-G]
2.2. Having regard to the materials on record, no case, worth the name for further investigation or re-investigation, could also be said to have been made out.The filing of the charge sheets at the conclusion of the investigation into the various FIRs referred to above would indicate that the alleged massacre was at the end of the Naxalites (Maoists). The materials collected in the form of the charge sheets substantiate the case put up by the respondents that the villagers were attacked and killed by the Naxalites. There is not an iota of material figuring in the investigation on the basis of which even a finger can be pointed towards the members of the police force. [Paras 56 and 57][776-G-H; 777-A-B]
2.3. The writ petition gives an impression that proper investigation is not being done and, therefore, the same should be handed over to the CBI. However, the fact is that the investigation has already been carried out and charge sheets have been filed. [Para 58][777-B-C]
2.4. It appears from the materials on record that all those persons who have been arraigned as accused and against whom charge sheets have been filed are absconding. It is now for the concerned trial court to take appropriate steps in this regard. If the persons named as accused in the charge sheets are absconding, then it is expected of the investigating agency to take necessary steps for their arrest. In any view of the matter, it is now for the trial court to do the needful in accordance with law. [Para 64][781-F-H]
2.5. In the overall view of the matter, it is clear that no case, worth the name, has been made out by the writ petitioners for any further investigation much less through an independent agency to be appointed by this Court. In the facts of the above case, the conditions laid down by this Court in the case of Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal are not fulfilled. [Para 65][781-H; 782-A-B]
3.1. The essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence. The complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person. This complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. [Para 90][802-D-E]
3.2. The CrPC does not define what constitutes the making of a “charge” of an offence or what amounts to the “institution of criminal proceedings”. But, a false “charge” must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning, of a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion. [Para 91][802-E-F]
3.3. The essential ingredient of an offence under Section
211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. “To falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be, read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be’ embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. [Para 94][804-D-H; 805-A]
State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (2010) 3 SCC 571 : [2010] 2 SCR 979 – followed.
K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai, (2013) 12 SCC 480 : [2013]
9 SCR 199 – relied on.
Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 521; Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753 : [2013] 9 SCR 199; Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79 : [2011] 5 SCR 729; Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India (2016) 1 SCC 1 :
[ 2015]12 SCR 498; E. Sivakumar v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 365; [2018] 6 SCR 522; Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542 : [2008]
4 SCR 701; K.Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another AIR 1978 SC 290 : [1978] 2 SCR 209; Baban Singh and another v. Jagdish Singh and others AIR 1967 SC 68 : [1966] 3 SCR 552; Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (1971) 1 SCC 774 : [1971] Suppl. SCR172; Chandrapal Singh and Others v. Maharaj Singh and Another (1982) 1 SCC 466; R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka and Others (2011) 5 SCC 689 : [2010] 14 SCR 227; S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana AIR 1978 SC 1753 : [1979] 1 SCR 722; Muthu Karuppan, Commissioner of Police, Chennai v. ParithiIlamvazhuthi and another (2011) 5 SCC 496 : [2011] 5 SCR 329; M.S. Sheriff and Another v. State of Madras and Others AIR 1954 SC 397 : [1954] SCR 1144; Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and another (2019) SCC 172 : [2019]
3 SCR 400; Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya
(2010) 15 SCC 290; State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh (2020) 12 SCC 96; Santokh Singh & Ors. v. Izhar Hussan and Anr. (1973) 2 SCC 406 : [1974] 1 SCR 78 and M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur AIR 1967 SC 528 : [1967]
1 SCR 520 – referred to.
CBI & Another v. Rajesh Gandhi and another 1997 Cr.L.J 63 – affirmed.
Karim Buksh v. Queen Emp 17 C. 574 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.