Factual Background 

In the Matter of Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, A criminal appeal was submitted to overturn the High Court’s ruling and save the petitioner from facing criminal charges. The primary accused allegedly persuaded the second respondent into giving Rs. 45 lakhs for the start-up of a pharmaceutical enterprise. The complainant, her spouse, and other fellow defendants were allegedly involved in cheating and fraud, according to the second respondent. Seven suspects, including the petitioner, were the subject of a First Information Report. For violations of The provisions of sections 420, 406, 506, 379, 120-B, along with 180 of the IPC, a police complaint was submitted. On July 30, 2021, the person who filed the petition joined the inquiry and provided a voluntary statement, which she chose not to sign. She was accused of committing a crime covered by section 180 of the IPC. The Chief judiciary magistrate of Kurukshetra filed charges against the petitioner after the Criminal Court recognised the offence. The Appellate Sessions Judge rejected the revision petition when the petitioner objected to the ruling. Angered, the petitioner went to the High Court, where it was rejected, resulting in the challenged Judgement.

Analysis of Court Order 

The petitioner was also accused of violating Section 180 of the Penal Code, 1860, according to the Joint Panel Supreme Court of Justice  S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta. The Court censured the Deputy Superintendent of Police for failing to understand that, according to the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, no statement was made to a police officer during any investigation conducted in accordance with Chapter XII of the Cr.PC that is reduced to writing requires the maker of the statement to sign the statement.

The Court observed that the DSP served as the State’s deponent for its reply affidavit. The Court was shocked to learn that a DSP officer could swear an affidavit that was intended to be submitted with the Court in such a careless manner. The court ruled that a DSP officer should be aware that, under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, no statement was made to a police officer during an investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.PC must be signed by the person making the statement; instead, Section 180 of the IPC only becomes applicable if the person making the statement refuses to sign a statement that a public servant is legally authorised to request the person making the statement to sign. According to the Court, this was not the situation in the instant case. The Court advised the DSP to exercise caution going forward.

As a result, the Court affirmed the contested verdict and the High Court’s order dismissing section 482 of the Cr. PC. petition. The Trial Court may continue the trial without being impacted by any observations made by the Court’s judgement, the Court declared.

CASE NAME – Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, SLP (Cri) No. 3662 Of 2023