{"id":296267,"date":"2023-07-07T15:00:01","date_gmt":"2023-07-07T09:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=296267"},"modified":"2023-07-10T15:51:08","modified_gmt":"2023-07-10T10:21:08","slug":"s-180-of-ipc-if-statement-refused-to-signed-which-public-servant-legally-competent-to-get-signed-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/07\/s-180-of-ipc-if-statement-refused-to-signed-which-public-servant-legally-competent-to-get-signed-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 180 IPC applies only if the person making a statement refuses to sign it when legally required to do so by a competent public servant: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/b> In a criminal petition filed against the Judgment of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta<\/b>*, J., noted that the petitioner was also charged with offence under Section 180<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, (‘IPC’). The Court reprimanded the Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘DSP’) for not knowing that in terms of Section 162<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (‘Cr. PC’), no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.PC<\/a>, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/h4>\n

The second respondent’s case was that she was allured by the petitioner’s sister (‘principal accused’) to give the principal accused Rs. 45 lakhs for the purpose of establishment of a pharma company engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines. The second respondent had accused the petitioner, her husband and various other co-accused. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner had introduced her to the principal accused and that she is a member of the gang which cheated and defrauded her. A First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered under Sections 406<\/a>, 420<\/a>, 506<\/a> and 120-B<\/a>, of the IPC<\/a> against 7 accused persons including the present petitioner. A police report was submitted for offences under Sections 420<\/a>, 406<\/a>, 506<\/a>, 379<\/a>, 120-B<\/a> and 180<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>, against the petitioner. The petitioner had joined the investigation on 30-07-2021 and she had made a confessional statement which, ultimately, she declined to sign hence, she was also charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 180<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Subsequently, the Criminal Court took cognizance of the offence and thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra (‘CJM’) by an order dated 18-07-2022. The said Order was challenged by the petitioner under section 397<\/a> of the Cr. PC<\/a>, however, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, (‘ASJ’) dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Orders, the petitioner approached the High Court, and the High Court dismissed the petition vide Order dated 11-11-2022, forming the impugned Judgment.<\/p>\n

Court’s Decision<\/h4>\n

The Court noted that the charge sheet did not clarify the role of the petitioner in either cheating or defrauding the second respondent but referred to her, at best, as a conspirator. The Court said that it was also highlighted in the charge-sheet that after securing anticipatory bail, the petitioner had joined the investigation on 30-07-2021 and in course thereof she had made a confessional statement which, ultimately, she had declined to sign, hence, she was also charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 180<\/a> of the IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court said that this was a case where the charges were framed, and the accused were awaiting trial. The Court was of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps were not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous that allowing the trial to progress would cause a miscarriage of justice. The Court said that it was no part of the business of any of the Courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, whether it could be conviction or acquittal of the accused. The Court also said that the 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 of the same that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it.<\/p>\n

Referring to Amit Kapoor<\/i> v. Ramesh Chander<\/i>, (2012) 9 SCC 460<\/a>, wherein the guiding principles for quashing of a charge or proceedings were laid, the Court said that the present case was not one of those rare cases, that even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to commission of any offence by the petitioner. Further, the Court said that it is trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge. The Court also added that the allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused from the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness, and conspired to cheat and defraud the second respondent, persuaded the Court to record that involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, could not be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court upheld the impugned judgment and the order of the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482<\/a> of the Cr.PC<\/a>. The Court said that the Trial Court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made by the Judgment of the Court.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the deponent of the reply affidavit of the State was the DSP. The Court was aghast to note that an officer of the rank of DSP could be so irresponsible while swearing an affidavit which was proposed to be filed before the Court. The Court said that an officer, who is a DSP, ought to know that in terms of Section 162<\/a> of the Cr.PC<\/a>, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.PC<\/a>, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that Section 180<\/a> of the IPC<\/a> 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 Court said that such was not the case in the present case. Thus, the Court warned the DSP to be cautious in future.<\/p>\n

[Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765<\/a>, decided on 04-07-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment Authored by: Justice Dipankar Datta<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge| Justice Dipankar Datta<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n