NDLI: Xyz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Criminal Procedure Code 1973 – s.156(3) – “may” – Commission of cognizable offence alleged need for police investigation
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – s. 156(3) – “may” – Commission of cognizable offence alleged, need for police investigation – Exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 156(3) – Sexual harassment alleged by appellant against second respondent (ViceChancellor of the Institute at the material time) – No action having been taken by Police on her complaint, the appellant eventually, moved the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) u/s.156(3) – JMFC though concluded that, prima facie, “occurrence of the offence by the accused persons” was “shown”, however, held that the case could be decided without collecting evidence from the police and it did not appear just and proper to act on the case filed on behalf of the appellant u/s. 156(3) – JMFC proceeded to treat the complaint as a complaint – Appellant filed application u/s. 482, CrPC – Dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: It is true that the use of the word “may” implies that the Magistrate has discretion in directing the police to investigate or proceeding with the case as a complaint case – But this discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be guided by judicial reasoning – In the present case, the appellant had also sought the production of DVRs containing the audio-video recording of the CCTV footage of the second respondent’s chamber – As a matter of fact, the Institute itself had addressed communications to him directing the production of the recordings, noting that these recordings were handed over on his oral direction by the then Registrar of the Institute as he was the Vice-Chancellor – Due to the lack of response despite multiple attempts, the Institute even filed a complaint for registering an FIR against the second respondent for theft of the DVRs – Therefore, in such cases, where not only does the Magistrate find the commission of a cognizable offence alleged on a prima facie reading of the complaint but also such facts are brought to the Magistrate’s notice which clearly indicate the need for police investigation, the discretion granted in s. 156(3) can only be read as it being the Magistrate’s duty to order the police to investigate – In cases such as the present, wherein, there is alleged to be documentary or other evidence in the physical possession of the accused or other individuals which the police would be best placed to investigate and retrieve using its powers under the CrPC, the matter ought to be sent to the police for investigation – JMFC ought to have exercised jurisdiction u/s. 156(3) to direct the police to investigate – Discretion conferred upon the Magistrate by s. 156(3) must be exercised in a judicious manner – Impugned judgement of High Court set aside – JMFC Gwalior shall in terms of the observations contained, order an investigation by the police u/s. 156(3) – Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection and Redressal) Act 2013 – Crime Against Women. FIR – Sexual harassment alleged by appellant – No action taken by Police on her complaint – Held: Whether or not the offence complained of is made out is to be determined at the stage of investigation and/or trial – If, after conducting the investigation, the police find that no offence is made out, they may file a B Report u/s. 173 CrPC – However, it is not open to them to decline to register an FIR – The law in this regard is clear- police officers cannot exercise any discretion when they receive a complaint which discloses the commission of a cognizable offence – Crime Against Women.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 156(3) – Discretion granted to a Magistrate vis-à-vis the exercise of powers u/s. 156(3) – Discussed. Crime Against Women – Duty of courts dealing with complainants of sexual harassment and sexual assault in a sensitive manner, reiterated – Duty and responsibility of trial courts to deal with the aggrieved persons before them in appropriate manner, enumerated.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 799
Petitioner	Xyz
Respondent	State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
SCR	[2022] 18 S.C.R. 163
Judgement Date	2022-08-05
Case Number	1184

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

Xyz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

M/s Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.m. Johny & Ors.

Srinivas Gundluri & Ors. Vs. M/s. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation & Ors.

Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Rahul Modi & Ors.

Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Mishra

Jhummamal Alias Devandas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.

Ketankumar Babulal Patel Vs. Kesarben Jesangji and Ors.

Xyz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Xyz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M/s Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.m. Johny & Ors.

Srinivas Gundluri & Ors. Vs. M/s. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation & Ors.

Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Rahul Modi & Ors.

Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Mishra

Jhummamal Alias Devandas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Varsha Garg Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.

Ketankumar Babulal Patel Vs. Kesarben Jesangji and Ors.

Xyz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors