The Supreme Court recently observed that a charge sheet cannot be filed after a court passes an interim order restraining the state from taking coercive action against the accused in a criminal case,
A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih discharged contempt notices issued to three officers of the Jharkhand Police after they apologised for filing charge sheet despite the Court’s interim order restraining further action.
The Court examined affidavits filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) Deepak Kumar, Investigating Officer (IO) Tarkeshwar Prasad Kesari, and Station House Officer (SHO) Dayanand Kumar. The Court accepted their apology and directed the State to modify a 2011 letter by the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) that contributed to the filing of the charge sheet.
“
They have relied upon a letter dated 15th April, 2011 addressed by the Additional Director General of Police, Jharkhand to all Police Officers in the State. It is stated in the letter that even if court passes an order that no coercive action shall be taken as against the particular accused, there is no prohibition on filing charge-sheet against the accused. If a charge sheet is filed by relying upon clause 3 of letter dated 15th April, 2011 against an accused in whose favour there is an order directing not to take coercive action, the concerned officer will expose himself to contempt jurisdiction”, the Court observed.
The officers stated that they interpreted the Court’s order against coercive action as not prohibiting the filing of a charge sheet, relying on a letter dated April 15, 2011, issued by the ADGP of Jharkhand. The letter advised police officers that even if a Court restrained coercive action, it did not bar the filing of a charge sheet.
The Supreme Court found the interpretation in the letter to be “completely illegal.”
Directing Advocate Vishnu Sharma for the State to bring the Court’s observations to the attention of the ADGP, the Court recorded its expectation that the ADGP would immediately modify the letter.
Accepting the apologies tendered by the officers, the Court stated that no further action was required against them. Accordingly, the contempt notices were discharged.
Background
The case arose from a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenant, the wife of the then Director General of Police (DGP) of Jharkhand, filed an FIR against her landlord’s family. The FIR included allegations of forced entry, property damage, and physical assault. The landlord contended that the tenant filed the case in retaliation after an eviction process had been initiated.
On August 18, 2023, the Supreme Court passed an interim order barring the police from taking further action against the landlord in connection with the FIR. Despite this, a charge sheet was filed on September 30, 2023, referencing the Court’s order but proceeding with the filing.
The Court noted another instance of non-compliance when a proclamation against the petitioner was published in April 2023, despite a 2017 High Court interim order restraining coercive action.
On October 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued contempt notices to the three officers. On November 4, 2024, the contemnors appeared and sought time to explain their conduct through affidavits.
Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9859/2023
Case Title – Satish Kumar Ravi v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw(SC) 943