GOVIND PRASHAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Tushendra Singh Shandilya made a complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station Devbhog, Distt. Gariyaband that offence under Sections 3 (1) (v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act of 1989') has been committed by the present petitioners / accused persons. The Station House Officer who is happened to be the Deputy Superintendent of Police got the enquiry done on the said application / complaint by his Assistant Sub Inspector S.K. Vishwakarma and thereafter, he himself (Deputy Superintendent of Police) registered FIR on 12-1-2016 being FIR No.11/2016 and thereafter, investigated the matter, arrested the accused persons (present petitioners) and also seized property under his own handwriting and signature and he himself has submitted the charge-sheet.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners principally on the ground that the offence under the Act of 1989 is required to be investigated by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, whereas it has preliminarily been enquired into by the Assistant Sub Inspector S.K. Vishwakarma and, therefore, it is hit by Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, 'the Rules of 1995').

(3.) Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that in this case, the opening words of the FIR clearly state that the offence under the Act of 1989 has been investigated by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and in view of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1995, which is mandatory in nature and which clearly provides that an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director-General of Police/ Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time, the impugned prosecution is required to be quashed.