Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 April, 2018
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) OF 2018
(DIARY NO.12243 OF 2018)
UNION OF INDIA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
IN THE MATTER OF:
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.416 OF 2018
DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Permission to file Review Petition is granted. The same is permitted to be heard in open Court. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by
2. SWETA DHYANI Date: 2018.04.03 We have heard learned Attorney General, learned 17:24:13 IST Reason:
counsel for the parties and learned amicus, Sh. Amrendra Sharan, learned senior Advocate.2
3. The review has been sought of order of this Court dated 20th March, 2018. The operative part is as follows:-
“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 scrutinized 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 direction (iii) and (iv) will be actionable by way of disciplinary action as well as contempt.
The above directions are prospective.” Para 83 (iv) is to be read with para 79 as follows:
“79…………...Such inquiry must be time-bound and should not exceed seven days in view of directions in Lalita Kumari (supra).” …………… 3
4. Learned Attorney General has focused on and accordingly we confine our consideration to direction (iii) to
(v).
5. It is pointed out that as per Rule 12(4) and (4A) read with Annexure-I of the 2016 Amendment to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, immediate compensation or other assistance has to be given to victim belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. If there is delay in preliminary inquiry, payment of such compensation or other immediate relief may be delayed. The second submission is that there may be offences under the provision of the Indian Penal Code or any other law and direction to hold preliminary inquiry may delay registration of case in respect of such other offences also. The third submission is that the directions are in conflict with the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Learned Amicus submitted that the directions in the order of this Court do not in any manner obstruct the grant of relief as preliminary inquiry can be held forthwith. Seven days is the outer limit. He also submitted that compensation is different from registration of FIR or arrest. The compensation can be given forthwith, subject to further action. He submitted that there is no obstruction to a case under any other provision being registered forthwith. Offence under SC/ST can be added subsequently after the preliminarily inquiry. He further 4 submitted that no provision of SC/ST Act relating to compensation, trial or punishment or otherwise has been in any manner diluted. What has been laid down is safeguard against false implications and arrest by the Police by itself or at the instance of any other vested interest. The directions do not in any manner prejudice the remedy of the members of the SC/ST Act. The directions only protect the innocent against abuse of law. Wrong and misleading projection in this regard needs to be checked.
7. A perusal of the order of this Court makes it clear that there is no bar to compensation or other immediate relief being given to the victim member of the SC/ST as per the provisions noted above without any delay whatsoever. There is also no bar to registration of F.I.R. under any provision of the penal code or any other law and the offences under the SC/ST Act being added later, if necessary. Thus, there is no dilution of any provision of the SC/ST Act relating to compensation, trial, punishment or otherwise. The order only safeguards abuse of power of arrest or of false implication of an innocent without in any manner affecting the rights of the members of the SC/ST, as rightly submitted by learned amicus.
8. The matter may have to be heard and considered further but since Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Maharashtra and Sh. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenor representing members of SC/ST, seek time to file written submissions, hearing is 5 deferred. Let the written submissions be filed.
List the matter after written submissions are filed.
..........................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] ..........................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT] NEW DELHI 3rd April, 2018 6 ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 12243/2018 in Criminal Appeal No.416 of 2018 UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s) (I.A. No.47505/2018 – Application for permission to file Review Petition) WITH Diary No(s). 11572/2018 in (II-A) (I.A. No.45183/2018 – Application for permission to file review petition, I.A. No.45186/2018 – Exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment) Diary No(s). 11875/2018 (II-A) (Application for permission to file review petition) Diary No(s). 11875/2018 (II-A) (Application for permission to file review petition) Diary No(s). 12240/2018 (II-A) (Application for permission to file review petition) Date : 03-04-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.K.Venugopal, AG Mr. Maninder Singh,ASG Mr. Nalin Kohli,Adv.
Mr. Ankit Roy,Adv.
Mr. Prabhas Bajaj,Adv.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu,Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. K. Radhakrishanan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. M.Y. Deshmukh,Adv.
Mr. Shakti Pandey,Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Petitioner-in-person 7 Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. A. Sharan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari,Adv.
Mr. Shashwat Singh,Adv.
Mr. Samarth Khanna,aDV.
Ms. Aprajita,Adv.
For State Mr. Tushar Mehta,ASG Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,Adv. For Intervenor Ms. Manisha T. Kara,Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Nagpal,Adv.
Ms. Saumya,Adv.
Mr. Shashank Mangal,Adv.
Mr. Abhay Anturkar,Adv.
Mr. R.R. Deshpande,Adv.
For M/s Abhay Anturkar & Associates. Mr. Prashant R.Dahat,Adv.
Mr. P. Angi Babu,Adv.
Mr. P.V.Saravana Raja,AOR Mr. A.K. Bajapai, Adv.
Mr. Nitin Bajpai, Adv.
Mr. Udit Grover, Adv.
Mr. Mudit Sood, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Review Petition No. of 2018 (Diary No.12243 of 2018):
In terms of the signed order, the matter to be listed after written submissions are filed.
Diary No(s). 11572/2018, Diary No(s). 11875/2018, Diary No(s). 11875/2018 & Diary No(s). 12240/2018:
These matters are deleted and to be listed as per rules.
(SWETA DHYANI) (ANJU DUA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order in R.P.(C) D. No.12243/2018 is placed on the file)