NDLI: Himanshu Kumar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Criminal Law – Constitution of India
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Criminal Law – Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petition seeking mandamus for re-investigation / further investigation – Two incidents of alleged brutal massacre of tribals in three villages in the State of Chhattisgarh – 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 were responsible for the alleged massacre – Whether any case was made out by the writ petitioners for investigation of the two incidents through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Held: The extraordinary power of the Constitutional Courts under Articles 32 and 226 respectively of the Constitution qua the issuance of directions to the CBI to conduct investigation must be exercised with great caution – The contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or re-investigation – No one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency – An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice – The power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances” – On facts, the writ petition gives an impression that proper investigation was not being done and, therefore, the same should be handed over to the CBI – However, the fact is that the investigation had been already carried out and charge sheets had been filed – In the overall view of the matter, it was clear that no case, worth the name, has been made out by the writ petitioners for any further investigation much less through an independent agency to be appointed by the Supreme Court.Criminal Law – Investigation – The power to transfer an investigation must be used “sparingly” and only “in exceptional circumstances”. Criminal Law – CrPC does not define what constitutes the making of a “charge” of an offence or what amounts to the “institution of criminal proceedings” – The statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 340 r/w s. 195 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 191 and 193 – Perjury – Offence of making false affidavit and giving false evidence – Held: There are two conditions, on fulfilment of which, a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a court – The first condition being that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the court and, secondly, in the opinion of the court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him – There should be something deliberate - a statement should be made deliberately and consciously which is found to be false as a result of comparing it with unimpeachable evidence, documentary or otherwise – Before initiating proceedings for perjury, the court concerned has to consider whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to sanction such prosecution – Before sanctioning prosecution there must be a prima facie case of a falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 211 – Essential ingredients for invoking s.211 – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 720
Petitioner	Himanshu Kumar And Others
Respondent	State Of Chhattisgarh And Others
SCR	[2022] 11 S.C.R. 724
Judgement Date	2022-07-14
Case Number	103

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Himanshu Kumar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Navika Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others

Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Others

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ram Kumar Kashyap and Anr. Vs. Union of India

Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs. State of M.p. and Ors.

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ibrahim Ahmad Batti Vs. State of Gujarat & Others

Jaipal & Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Himanshu Kumar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Himanshu Kumar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Navika Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others

Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Others

Gaurav Kumar Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ram Kumar Kashyap and Anr. Vs. Union of India

Himanshu Singh Sabharwal Vs. State of M.p. and Ors.

Arun Kumar Agrawal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ibrahim Ahmad Batti Vs. State of Gujarat & Others

Jaipal & Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others

Janardan Reddy and Others Vs. The State of Hyderabad and Others

Himanshu Kumar and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others