Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that no person can be prosecuted for refusing to sign a statement made to a police officer, while warning a Deputy Superintendent of Police for showing audacity to justify a charge sheet filed against a woman for the offence.

"We are aghast to note that an officer of the rank of DSP could be so irresponsible while swearing an affidavit which is proposed to be filed before this Court," a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta said, while asking the officer to be cautious in future. 

"An officer, who is a DSP, ought to know that in terms of section 162, CrPC, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the CrPC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign," the bench added.

The court came across "ignorance" of legal provision by the officer while dismissing an appeal filed by Supriya Jain against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgement which had declined to quash a criminal case lodged against her for cheating, criminal conspiracy and other offences.

It directed its Registry to forward a copy of this judgment to the Director General of Police not for the purpose of initiating any action adverse to the interest of the officer concerned but for the purpose of ensuring that police officers at all levels are made aware of the legal provisions and the impact that ignorance of legal provisions could have on pending criminal proceedings adversely affecting the rights of accused, so that there is no recurrence of similar such incident.

Having noted that the charges have already been framed against the accused, the bench said that it is of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. 

"This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused," the bench said. 

The court emphasised that a small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it.

"Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it," the court added.

Taking an exception to the affidavit by the DSP, the bench clarified that if any charge under Section 180 of the IPC by any separate order has been framed against the petitioner, she will be at liberty to pursue her remedy in accordance with law.

"Since the deponent (DSP) has not been heard by us, we do not propose to take the issue further but warn him to be cautious in future," the bench said.

Case Title: Supriya Jain Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.