PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2020-2-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 10,2020

Prathvi Raj Chauhan Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

LAXMI NARAYAN SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
A. CHANDRASHEKAR RAO VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
UMENDRA SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
BHIMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
SARABJEET KAUR WIFE OF HARPREET SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-12-71] [REFERRED TO]
DR. PREMSHANKAR VIDYADHAR BHATT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
NANDKISHOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-292] [REFERRED TO]
KAILAS SHANKARLAL SONI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-189] [REFERRED TO]
VINUBHAI DEVSHIBHAI NAKRANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-6-389] [REFERRED TO]
RAJPUT BRIJRAJSINH BADANSINH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-301] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
ARUL P. SUGATHAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2020-10-518] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-113] [REFERRED TO]
RAVIKUMAR VS. STATE OF KARANTAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-179] [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKARJUNA S/O PARSHURAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-71] [REFERRED TO]
SOORAJ V. SUKUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
P.S. MAHESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
UDAY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-7-373] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH M.S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-379] [REFERRED TO]
RAHNA JALAL VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2020-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
BALJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT SHUKLA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANAND NISHAD, VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-5-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL SHARMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA YADAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL MISHRA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-122] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMSHIBHAI TAPUBHAI SONAGARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-237] [REFERRED TO]
AAKASH VINESH MALIK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-128] [REFERRED TO]
ANILKUMAR BHOGIRAM SHRIVASTAV VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-264] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-127] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN JAIPURIYA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAYKUMAR SARMANBHAI VARU VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-202] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH PARBAD BARADIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-195] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT DAYALAL BHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-189] [REFERRED TO]
K.M.BASHEER VS. RAJANI K.T. [LAWS(KER)-2022-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
BYJU SEBASTIAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
HAMPANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-118] [REFERRED TO]
SUMANGALA TIMMAPPA DESAI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-228] [REFERRED TO]
MALLU @ MALLIKARJUN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-8-145] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-405] [REFERRED TO]
APARNA PUROHIT VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-100] [REFERRED TO]
PAPU ASHOK SUPEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-151] [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK UKABHAI GUJJAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
HASMITABA GULABSINH JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-139] [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATHBHAI HAMIRJI THAKOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
PADAMSINH AMBALAL PADHIYAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-396] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIPATSINH HIMMATSINH GOHIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-290] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASHBHAI PRABHUDAS SATAPARA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH YADAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
ABBAS R.V VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-163] [REFERRED TO]
LADUBEN JAYDEVBHAI BRAHMAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-541] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH NATHALA KALANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-302] [REFERRED TO]
ATULBHAI MAHIPATBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-446] [REFERRED TO]
VAJABHAI KHIMABHAI RABARI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-198] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KESHRI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
V VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
AJUMON VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-1-196] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-275] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWA PRASAD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-339] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA JAYAKUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
CHIDANANDA @ SHIVANANDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
POSHAN SHRIWAS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
PATEL ARVINDBHAI JAYRAMBHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-6-760] [REFERRED TO]
AMI CHAND VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
KRIPASHANKAR JAISWAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-11-88] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-2-300] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-128] [REFERRED TO]
PRATHEESH R. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-2-197] [REFERRED TO]
JULI C.J. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. R.S.BHARATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH M.S. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-90] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL PATIL VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-7-333] [REFERRED TO]
DANISH KHAN VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2021-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKARBHAI GOMANBHAI KOLIPATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-479] [REFERRED TO]
DAHYABHAI PRABHUBHAI KOLI(PATEL) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-317] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTADEVI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2020-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRAPURI LADHUPURI GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-379] [REFERRED TO]
KALABHAI KEHABHAI DABHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-618] [REFERRED TO]
NILESHBHAI DEVRAJBHAI LUHAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-236] [REFERRED TO]
MEGHABHAI JIVABHAI KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-7-243] [REFERRED TO]
XXX VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH G. PATEL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-188] [REFERRED TO]
MANJUNATHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-6-241] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN CHAND GUPTA VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
B VIJAYANAND VS. STATE TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKAR REDDY PANNALA VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
GUGULOTH SANTOSH NAIK VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
MACHAMADAKASHI VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-12-118] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA SONI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-32] [REFERRED TO]
SUFAL DAS MANIKPURI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNUDAS MAHANT VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
HITESH DIPAKBHAI SHARMA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-320] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-112] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN S/O GANPATRAO GHUGE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
DEVNARAYAN SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
PAVAS SHARMA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-113] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

ARUN MISHRA,J. - (1.)The petitioners have questioned the provisions inserted by way of carving out section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act of 1989). Section 18 as well as section 18A, are reproduced hereunder:
"18. Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.--Nothing in section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act." "Section 18A. (i) For the purpose of this Act,-

(a) preliminary enquiry shall be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or

(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made, and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.

(ii) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court."

(2.)It is submitted that section 18A has been enacted to nullify the judgment of this Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2018) 6 SCC 454, in which following directions were issued:
"83. Our conclusions are as follows:

(i) Proceedings in the present case are clear abuse of process of court and are quashed.

(ii) There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D. Suthar (supra) and Dr. N.T. Desai (supra) and clarify the judgments of this Court in Balothia (supra) and Manju Devi (supra);

(iii) In view of acknowledged abuse of law of arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a non-public servant after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted in appropriate cases if considered necessary for reasons recorded. Such reasons must be scrutinised by the Magistrate for permitting further detention.

(iv) To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP concerned to find out whether the allegations make out a case under the Atrocities Act and that the allegations are not frivolous or motivated.

(v) Any violation of directions (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt. The above directions are prospective."

(3.)It has been submitted that this Court has noted in Dr. Subhash Kashinath (supra) that the provisions of the Act of 1989 are being misused as such the amendment is arbitrary, unjust, irrational and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There could not have been any curtailment of the right to obtain anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.PC. Prior scrutiny and proper investigation are necessary. Most of the safeguards have been provided under the Act of 1989 to prevent undue harassment. This Court has struck down the provision of section 66A of the Information Technology Act on the ground of violation of fundamental rights; on the same anvil, the provisions of section 18A of the Act of 1989 deserve to be struck down.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.