Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) In this appeal, an interesting point has been raised. A learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the revision application filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) quashing the order framing charge.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : 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. 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 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 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 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 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, (Scheduled Castes 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 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 with the materials 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.
(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.;