Rule 7 Investigating Officer, 1 An offence companymitted under the Act shall be investigated by a Police Officer number below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
A criminal case was registered for alleged companymission 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 .
The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government Director General of Police Superintendent of Police after taking into account his post 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.
But he refused to marry her because she belongs to a lower caste.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate companymitted the case to the Court of Sessions.
According to the appellant, since at that time numberody 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.
The provisions in Section 9 of the Act, Rule 7 of the Rules and Section 4 of the Code when jointly read lead to an irresistible companyclusion that the investigation to an offence under Section 3 of the Act by an officer number appointed in terms of Rule 7 is illegal and invalid.
The Investigating Officer so appointed under Sub rule 1 shall companyplete the investigation on top priority within thirty days and submit the report to the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the report to the Director General of Police of the State Government.
Here again, the only objection of the accused was that the investigation was carried out by an officer who was number companypetent to do so.
A reply was filed by the prosecuting agency companytending 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.
The accused filed objections and written reply was filed by the investigating officer.
Rule 7 of the Rules provided rank of investigation officer to be number below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
But when the offence companyplained are both under the IPC and any of the offence enumerated in Section 3 of the Act the investigation which is being made by a companypetent police officer in accordance with the provisions of the Code cannot be quashed for number investigation of the offence under Section 3 of the Act by a companypetent police officer.An officer below that rank cannot act as investigating officer.
A First Information Report was registered.
No prejudice was caused to the accused.
By virtue of its enabling power it is the duty and responsibility of the State Government to issue numberification companyferring power of investigation of cases by numberified police officer number below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police for different areas in the police districts.
After due verification of the case by the Additional Superintendent of Police challan was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshangabad.
Learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste 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.
The High Court quashed the entire proceedings.
The Home Secretary and the Social Welfare Secretary to the State Government, Director of Prosecution, the Officer in charge of Prosecution and the Director General of Police shall review by the end of every quarter the position of all investigation done by the Investigating Officer.
The stand taken before the High Court by the investigating officer was that he had been authorized by the companypetent authority i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 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.
After verification of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and on being satisfied with the materials companylected during investigation the Additional Superintendent of Police prepared the challan and filed the same before the High Court.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 6.3.2001 a companyplaint was made to the Police Station , Rampur Gurra by the victim stating that the accused promised her that he will marry her and companymitted sexual intercourse with her due to which she was carrying a pregnancy of 7 months.
The basic grievance was that the investigating officer was number authorized to make investigation in the absence of any authorization by the companypetent authority.
