Sec 180 IPC Can't Be Applied Against A Person For Refusing To Sign Statement Given To Police : Supreme Court Castigates DySP

The Supreme Court has held that Section 180 of Indian Penal Code is not attracted if a person refuses to sign the statement made to a police officer in course of an investigation.

"In terms of section 162, Cr. PC, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.", the bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta observed.

Section 180 IPC reads as follows: Whoever refuses to sign any statement made by him, when required to sign that statement by a public servant legally competent to require that he shall sign that statement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

The court was considering an appeal filed against the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC holding that there was sufficient material found against the accused in course of investigation. The accused was facing charges for cheating, criminal breach of trust, theft etc. Apart from these, the offence under Section 180 IPC was also invoked against the accused.

The Supreme Court was surprised by the justification given by the police for applying Section 180 IPC. The bench noted that in reply affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, it was stated that as the accused refused to sign her statement, she was also charge sheeted for commission of an offence under section 180 IPC.

Taking serious exception to this, the bench observed:

"We are aghast to note that an officer of the rank of DSP could be so irresponsible while swearing an affidavit which is proposed to be filed before this Court. An officer, who is a DSP, ought to know that in terms of section 162, Cr. PC, no statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign. That is not the case here. Since the deponent has not been heard by us, we do not propose to take the issue further but warn him to be cautious in future"

However, as regards the merits of the matter, the Supreme Court refused to quash the case, noting that it was a mater for trial. While dismissing the appeal, the bench directed the Registry to forward the copy of this judgment to the Director General of Police "This is not for the purpose of initiating any action adverse to the interest of the deponent of the reply affidavit but for the purpose of ensuring that police officers at all levels are made aware of the legal provisions and the impact that ignorance of legal provisions could have on pending criminal proceedings adversely affecting the rights of accused, so that there is no recurrence of similar such incident.", the bench added.

While upholding the High Court judgment dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the court said:

"It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, ~ conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. "

Case details

Supriya Jain vs State of Haryana | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494 | SLP(Crl) 3662 OF 2023| 4 July 2023

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 180 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 162- No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement - Section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign. (Para 22)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 482, 397 - The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge / proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397, Cr. PC or section 482, Cr. PC or together - Referred to Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460. (Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 482 - It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, ~ conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. (Para 17)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment