Karnataka High Court states CCB can probe city police cases, and their chargesheets are final reports under CrPC Section 173(2).
Justice K Natarajan upheld a 25-02-2021 government notification, appointing CCB police officers to exercise Station House Officer powers in Bangalore City
"When a superior police officer delegates investigation powers to the CCB, they can assume the functions of a superior investigation officer, including filing charge sheets or final reports under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., as per Section 36 of Cr.P.C."
The Court also clarified that when a CCB Police officer investigates a case as a superior officer, they become the officer in charge of the police station as per the Karnataka Police Act, allowing them to wield the authority under Section 36 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, the argument by the senior counsel that the State Government lacks the authority to issue such a notification without amending the Cr.P.C. through the legislative assembly in a legally recognized manner is not valid.
The court was handling a petition from Dittu Mehta and his family, who sought to invalidate the criminal case filed by his estranged wife. The charges included sections 323, 354(A)(B), 498-A, 504, 506, 34 of IPC, and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The police initially registered an FIR for these offenses. Subsequently, under the Commissioner of Police's direction, the CCB police took over the investigation and eventually filed a charge sheet.
Moreover, for the Magistrate to initiate legal proceedings under Section 190 of Cr.P.C., they can do so based on the police report filed under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. by the officer in charge of the police station. However, the CCB is not classified as a police station.
Hence, the government's notification dated 25.02.2021 cannot be regarded as an order for transferring the investigation and filing a charge sheet by the CCB police.
In the Indian context, it's important to clarify that officers in the Criminal Investigation Department (CCB) do not hold the position of Station House Officers (SHOs). SHOs are typically in charge of police stations, overseeing their administration and functioning. CCB officers, while empowered to investigate and handle cases, do not have the same title or responsibilities as SHOs.
Furthermore, when it comes to the report submitted by a police officer in the CCB as part of the legal process under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), it does not align with the definition of a "report" as outlined in Section 2(r) of Cr.P.C. The latter definition primarily pertains to information intended for public dissemination, encompassing written, printed, audio, video, or electronic communication. In contrast, the report submitted under Section 173 is a formal document related to the investigation of a specific case and is often referred to as a "charge sheet." It serves a legal function, distinct from the broader notion of a "report" under Section 2(r).
The petitioners contended that before lodging the complaint, accused No.1 had already filed a divorce petition against respondent No.2 (the de-facto complainant). Additionally, the de-facto complainant had also filed a divorce petition. It's worth noting that during the legal proceedings, the evidence provided by the petitioner (accused No.1) remained unchallenged during cross-examination. Furthermore, respondent No.2 (the de-facto complainant) expressed no objection to granting a divorce decree in favor of accused No.1.
It was argued that the allegations presented in both the complaint and the divorce petition by the accused clearly indicate that the accused had accused the respondent (de-facto complainant) of cruelty, and this accusation was admitted by her. As a result, the claims made by the de-facto complainant in her complaint regarding cruelty and in the charge sheet are not legally justifiable.
The bench cited a Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Kerala v. P.B. Sourabha (2016) 4 SCC 102, where it was established that the Commissioner possesses the authority to designate a superior officer to conduct an investigation into the matter.
The bench made it clear that in this case, the Commissioner of Police had indeed directed the CCB police officer to investigate the matter and submit a charge sheet. As a result, the argument put forth by the petitioner's senior counsel, claiming that the charge sheet filed by the CCB was legally unsustainable and that the Commissioner of Police lacked the authority to refer the complaint for CCB investigation, was found to be without merit or justification.
The court examined the documents and records related to the issuance of the challenged notification by the State Government.
It was discovered that the CCB police was established on September 3, 1971, comprising a record section, a special squad, a cycle squad, and a total of 2 circle inspectors, 8 sub-inspectors, 20 head constables, and 12 constables were assigned to it. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) was responsible for overseeing the CCB. Subsequently, on February 10, 1994, the State Government issued another notification appointing additional officers to the CCB.
On November 13, 2002, Notification 56 was issued, which categorized crimes and designated the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), and other police officers for the CCB. In 2004, an investigation officer was appointed, and on March 27, 2004, the strength of the investigation officer was expanded through the reorganization of the CCB, with the appointment of additional ACPs. Lastly, the most recent notification, dated February 25, 2021, was issued.
TAGS: Notification Categorization Crimes DCP ACP Investigation Officer Reorganization
