2022 (7) TMI 1469 - SC - Indian Laws

Alleged massacre of Tribals - It is the case of the writ Petitioners that the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), the activists of Salwa Judum (group of vigilantes sponsored by the Chhattisgarh Government) and the Paramilitary Forces consisting of the CRPF and the CoBRA Battalions are responsible for the alleged brutal massacre of the tribals in the respective villages - HELD THAT - Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came up for the consideration before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (11) TMI 1017 - SUPREME COURT . In Pritish, this Court was called upon to consider, whether it is mandatory on the part of the court to make a preliminary inquiry Under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before filing a complaint Under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further, whether the court is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom a complaint is filed before a Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings. This Court took the view that an opportunity to the would be Accused before the filing of the complaint was not mandatory, and observed that the preliminary inquiry was itself not mandatory. In M.S. SHERIFF VERSUS THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS 1954 (3) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT , a Constitution Bench of this Court said that no expression on the guilt or innocence of persons should be made by court while passing an order Under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure. An exercise at that stage is not for finding whether any offence was committed or who committed the same. The scope is confined to see whether the court could then decide on the materials available that the matter requires inquiry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it inquired into. This decision of the Constitution Bench has also been followed in Pritish observing that the court, when decides to make a complaint Under Section 340, is not to record finding of guilt or innocence of person against whom complaint is to be made before a Magistrate. The essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, Indian Penal Code are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence. The complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person. This complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person - a false charge in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning, of a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion. Application disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged Massacre on 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009
2. Request for CBI Investigation and Compensation
3. Allegations against Chhattisgarh Police, SPOs, Salwa Judum, and Paramilitary Forces
4. State of Chhattisgarh's Stance
5. Statements of Petitioners before District Judge
6. Submissions on behalf of Writ Petitioners and Respondents
7. Legal Position on CBI Investigation
8. Analysis of Evidence and Statements
9. Costs and Further Actions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Massacre on 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009:
The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India relates to the alleged massacre that took place on 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009 in the villages of Gachhanpalli, Gompad, and Belpocha in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. The petitioners claimed that the Chhattisgarh Police, Special Police Officers (SPOs), Salwa Judum activists, and Paramilitary Forces were responsible for the brutal massacre of tribals.

2. Request for CBI Investigation and Compensation:
The petitioners prayed for the CBI to take over the investigation and prosecution concerning the complaints related to the massacres. They also sought compensation for the victims and their families for the extra-judicial executions, looting, and burning of their houses.

3. Allegations against Chhattisgarh Police, SPOs, Salwa Judum, and Paramilitary Forces:
The petitioners alleged that the security forces chopped off body parts, murdered infants, and looted properties. They cited specific incidents and named the victims, providing details of the FIRs lodged.

4. State of Chhattisgarh's Stance:
The State of Chhattisgarh refuted all allegations, asserting that the incidents were attacks by Naxalites and not massacres by security forces. They emphasized that the police and paramilitary forces were combating Naxalism, which posed a significant threat to national security.

5. Statements of Petitioners before District Judge:
The statements of the petitioners recorded by the District Judge revealed inconsistencies and contradictions with the allegations made in the writ petition. Many petitioners could not identify the assailants or confirm the details of the alleged incidents.

6. Submissions on behalf of Writ Petitioners and Respondents:
The petitioners, represented by Mr. Colin Gonsalves, argued for a CBI investigation, claiming the state police had not conducted a proper investigation. The respondents, represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations were false and aimed at demoralizing the security forces.

7. Legal Position on CBI Investigation:
The Supreme Court reiterated that an order directing a CBI investigation should not be passed routinely and must be reserved for exceptional situations where it is necessary to ensure credibility and instill confidence in the investigation. The court emphasized that mere allegations against the police do not justify transferring the investigation to the CBI.

8. Analysis of Evidence and Statements:
The court found that the investigation had been conducted, and charge sheets had been filed, indicating that the Naxalites were responsible for the killings. The court noted that the petitioners failed to provide evidence of any deficiencies in the investigation or the charge sheets.

9. Costs and Further Actions:
The writ petition was rejected with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,00,000 to be paid by the Petitioner No. 1. The court also directed the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI to consider taking appropriate action under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners for instituting false charges with the intent to injure.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the allegations and emphasizing the need for caution in directing CBI investigations. The court imposed costs on the petitioners and left it to the State of Chhattisgarh/CBI to take further action as deemed appropriate.

← Previous Next →