Supreme Court slams Haryana DSP for charging accused under Section 180 IPC for refusing to sign confession

The Supreme Court on Tuesday criticised a Haryana Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) for filing a charge under Section 180 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against an accused who refused to sign a confession statement. [Supriya Jain v. Haryana and Anr].The Court expressed that it was aghast by the irresponsible conduct of the police officer and termed the averment of the DSP in his reply affidavit as "audacious."A Bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta also asked the official to be more cautious and responsible in future."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," the Court said..Section 180 (refusing to sign statement) of the IPC provides for punishment to anyone who refuses to sign a statement made by them, when they are required to sign such statement by a public servant who is legally competent. The Bench held that the Section was not attracted in the present case, but proceeded not to further censure or act against the official. As pointed out in the judgment, Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) says that no statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation is required to be signed by the person making the statement. .A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the State's Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that such instances do not recur and so 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..The Court was dealing with a challenge to an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that had refused to quash proceedings against the appellant in a cheating case. The Bench held that the order under challenge did not meet the grounds necessitating any interference. As such, the High Court order was upheld..However, the appellant was given liberty to pursue remedies against the charges under Section 180 IPC, if any were framed or taken cognisance of later."If any charge thereunder by any separate order has been framed against the petitioner, she will be at liberty to pursue her remedy in accordance with law," the Court said..Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra with Advocates Yugandhara Pawar Jha and Kunal Verma appeared for the petitioner. Additional Advocate General (AAG) Anil Kaushik appeared for the State government..[Read judgment]