MANU/SC/0990/2022

Equivalent Citation: 2022(237)AIC 1, AIR2022SC 3957, 2022 (121) AC C 599, 2022(6)BLJ94, 2022C riLJ3969, 2022(3)C rimes439(SC ),
ILR2022(3)Kerala965, 2022/INSC /798, 2022(4)J.L.J.R.13, 2023(1)JKJ222[SC ], 2022(3)JLJ545, 2022 (5) KHC 403, 2022(5)KLT320,
2022(4)MLJ(C rl)477, 2022(II)OLR570, 2022(4)PLJR133, 2022(4)RC R(C riminal)560, 2022(3)UC 1671

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1674 of 2022)
Decided On: 05.08.2022
Appellants: XYZ
Vs.
Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Case Note:
Criminal -Jurisdiction - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
(CrPC) - Present appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the
High Court, dismissing an application under Section 482 of the CrPC -
Whether JMFC ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of
CrPC to direct the police to investigate?
Facts:
The Appellant had filed a complaint alleging that the second Respondent,
who was the Vice-Chancellor of the Institute, had been sexually harassing
her and, that she had been threatened with discharge from service on
having refused his demands. The complainant narrated that in order to
damage her records, other officers of the Institute, namely, the Head of the
Department, a teacher and the Registrar, conspired with the second
Respondent by fabricating documents. The JMFC came to the conclusion
that, prima facie, "occurrence of the offence by the Accused persons" was
"shown". Nonetheless, the JMFC 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 Under Section
156(3) of CrPC. The JMFC proceeded to treat the complaint as a complaint
case by granting liberty to the Appellant to be present for the recording of
her statements Under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC. The order of the JMFC
was questioned by the Appellant under Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure. By an order, a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
application. The High Court held that the JMFC was not under an obligation
to direct the police to register the FIR and the use of the expression "may"
in Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure indicated that the JMFC had
the discretion to direct the complainant to examine witnesses Under
Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, instead of directing an investigation Under
Section 156(3). The High Court also held that if the JMFC decided to
proceed by examining witnesses Under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC, she
would still have the option of seeking an investigation by the police, at that
stage, by directing an inquiry Under Section 202.
Held, while allowing the appeal

22-06-2023 (Page 1 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

1. It is every police officer's bounden duty to carry out his or her functions
in a public-spirited manner. The police must be cognizant of the fact that
they are usually the first point of contact for a victim of a crime or a
complainant. They must abide by the law and enable the smooth
registration of an FIR. Needless to say, they must treat all members of the
public in a fair and impartial manner. This is all the more essential in cases
of sexual harassment or violence, where victims (who are usually women)
face great societal stigma when they attempt to file a complaint. It is no
secret that women's families often do not approve of initiating criminal
proceedings in cases of sexual harassment. Various quarters of society
attempt to persuade the survivor not to register a complaint or initiate
other formal proceedings, and they often succeed. Finally, visiting the
police station and interacting with police officers can be an intimidating
experience for many. This discomfort is often compounded if the reason for
visiting the police station is to complain of a sexual offence. [16]
2. This being the case, the police ought not to create yet another obstacle
by declining to register an FIR despite receiving a complaint regarding
sexual harassment. Rather, they should put the complainant at ease and try
to create an atmosphere free from fear. They ought to be sensitive to her
mental state and the fact that she may have recently been subjected to a
traumatic experience. [17]
3. 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 Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. [18]
4. In the present case, the narration of facts makes it clear that upon the
invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of
CrPC, the JMFC came to the conclusion that serious allegations had been
levelled against the Accused by the Appellant and, that, from a perusal of
the documents in this regard, the statements of the complainant were
satisfactory. After taking note of the fact that the police had at an earlier
stage reported that the occurrence of an incident or offence was not found,
the JMFC opined that, from the facts which were set out by the complainant
in the complaint, prima facie, the occurrence of an offence was shown. [22]
5. 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
Section 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 Code of Criminal
Procedure, the matter ought to be sent to the police for investigation. [24]
6. Especially in cases alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault or any
similar criminal allegation wherein the victim has possibly already been

22-06-2023 (Page 2 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

traumatized, the Courts should not further burden the complainant and
should press upon the police to investigate. Due regard must be had to the
fact that it is not possible for the complainant to retrieve important
evidence regarding her complaint. It may not be possible to arrive at the
truth of the matter in the absence of such evidence. The complainant would
then be required to prove her case without being able to bring relevant
evidence (which is potentially of great probative value) on record, which
would be unjust. [25]
7. The JMFC ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of
CrPC to direct the police to investigate. [26]
8. It is the duty and responsibility of trial courts to deal with the aggrieved
persons before them in an appropriate manner, by: a. Allowing proceedings
to be conducted in camera, where appropriate, either Under Section 327
Code of Criminal Procedure or when the case otherwise involves the
aggrieved person (or other witness) testifying as to their experience of
sexual harassment/violence; b. Allowing the installation of a screen to
ensure that the aggrieved woman does not have to see the Accused while
testifying or in the alternative, directing the Accused to leave the room
while the aggrieved woman's testimony is being recorded; c. Ensuring that
the counsel for the Accused conducts the cross-examination of the
aggrieved woman in a respectful fashion and without asking inappropriate
questions, especially regarding the sexual history of the aggrieved woman.
Cross-examination may also be conducted such that the counsel for the
Accused submits her questions to the court, who then poses them to the
aggrieved woman; d. Completing cross-examination in one sitting, as far as
possible. [35]
9. Appeal allowed. [37]
JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge dated 6 January 2022 at the
Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dismissing an application Under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.1
3 . The Appellant is working as a yoga instructor at Lakshmibai National Institute of
Physical Education, Gwalior.2 The second Respondent was, at the material time, the
Vice-Chancellor of the Institute. The Appellant alleges that in March 2019, the second
Respondent touched her inappropriately at the Institute, upon which she disengaged
herself and shouted at him. On 14 October 2019, she lodged a complaint at Police
Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior. Apprehending that the police had not taken any
action, she furnished a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, City Centre,
Gwalior on 15 October 2019. Finding that no action had been taken on her complaint,
the Appellant submitted another complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 18
February 2020 and to both the Superintendent as well as at the PS Gole Ka Mandir
again on 24 February 2020. Eventually, the Appellant moved the Judicial Magistrate
First Class,3 Gwalior Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 26
February 2020, the JMFC directed the police to file a status report. It appears that the
proceedings before the JMFC were delayed due to the onset of the Covid-19

22-06-2023 (Page 3 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

pandemic.
4. In the meantime, the Appellant moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a writ
petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution with the grievance that no inquiry was
being conducted into her allegations, which were to be enquired into under the
provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Protection
and Redressal) Act 2013.
5 . An Internal Complaints Committee4 was constituted on 29 May 2020, with the
approval of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports. The report of the ICC dated 21
September 2020 found that the allegations which were levelled against the second
Respondent stood established. A dissenting note was submitted by one of the five
members of the ICC. The second Respondent has, this Court is informed, lodged an
appeal against the findings of the ICC.
6 . On 11 November 2020, the then Vice-Chancellor of the Institute addressed a
communication to the second Respondent stating that the DVRs containing an audio-
video recording for the months of August and September 2019 of the CCTV cameras
installed in the chamber of the Vice-Chancellor had been handed over to him in a
sealed packet, according to the then in-charge Registrar, in terms of the oral
direction of the second Respondent. The second Respondent was directed to make
available the sealed packet containing the DVRs of the audio-video recording for the
months of August and September 2019.
7. On 21 December 2020, the JMFC directed that a status report be sought from the
concerned Police Station and that a letter be issued to the Station In-charge for that
purpose. On 8 July 2021, a status report was filed by the officer in-charge, Police
Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior before the JMFC, noting that during the
course of the investigation, the statements of the complainant and the Accused
persons were recorded "wherein from the entire investigation, departmental
proceedings was conducted against the complainant...due to departmental
deficiencies and the occurrence of any offence was not found".
8 . On 23 July 2021, a communication was addressed by the in-charge Vice-
Chancellor to the second Respondent once again reiterating the demand for the DVRs
of the CCTV cameras placed in his office, which were stated to have been handed
over to him by the in-charge Registrar.
9. On 16 August 2021, the station in-charge of the Police Station informed the JMFC
that the investigation in the matter had not been completed and that time should be
granted for submitting a further status report. A reminder was addressed by the JMFC
to the station in-charge of the Police Station to submit a status report before the
Court by 9 September 2021. Thereafter, a letter dated 11 September 2021 was
addressed by the JMFC to the Superintendent of Police, seeking a direction to the
station in-charge to submit a report by 20 September 2021. On 20 September 2021,
the JMFC recorded that the status report had been received and accordingly, the
proceedings were posted for hearing the arguments of the applicant on 22 October
2021.
10. On 29 October 2021, the in-charge Vice-Chancellor at the Institute addressed a
communication to the station in-charge of the Police Station alleging that a sealed
packet of the DVRs had been handed over to the second Respondent, the then Vice-
Chancellor, on his oral directions and that despite communications for producing the
DVRs, they have not been made available. The communication noted that the DVRs of
the audio-video recording had been sought time and again by the Appellant and were

22-06-2023 (Page 4 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

found to be unavailable at the Institute, having been unauthorizedly removed in an
act of theft.
11. By an order dated 2 November 2021, the JMFC found that the Appellant had filed
a complaint alleging that the second Respondent, who was the Vice-Chancellor of the
Institute, had been sexually harassing her and, that she had been threatened with
discharge from service on having refused his demands. The complainant narrated that
in order to damage her records, other officers of the Institute, namely, the Head of
the Department, a teacher and the Registrar, conspired with the second Respondent
by fabricating documents. In this backdrop, the JMFC observed:
The serious allegations have been made against the Accused persons by the
complainant, from perusal of the documents in this regard, statements of the
complainant are found satisfactory. Though an enquiry report has been
submitted by the Police Station, Gole Ka Mandir, wherein it has been
mentioned during the course of investigation of the complaint, in the
statements of the complainant recorded, the complainant has alleged about
fabricating and tampering with her rightful documents as also putting
pressure upon her as well as creating illegal compulsion upon the
complainant by the Accused persons Indi Bora, Payal Das, Vivek Pandey, Col.
Janak Singh Shekhawat and Dilip Dureha, due to getting leave as also
touching with bad intention by Accused Dilip Dureha previously lodging a
complaint in the Police Station, Gola Ka Mandir against the aforesaid Accused
persons and the Writ Petition No. 5625/2020, stated to be pending before the
Hon'ble High Court. In the status report, it has also been mentioned that
previously itself, a complaint was lodged by the complainant in the Police
Station Gola Ka Mandir in the aforesaid regard, which was investigated by
the Sub Inspector, Rashmi Bhadoria. During the course of investigation,
statements of the complainant and the Accused were recorded, wherein from
the entire investigation, departmental proceedings against the complainant
due departmental deficiencies, and occurrence of any incident or offence
were not found. In the case, merely on the basis of the evidences collected
through the court, the case may be adjudicated. From the facts stated by the
complainant in the complaint, prima facie, occurrence of the offence by the
Accused persons are shown. In this regard, it is possible that the case can be
decided without collecting the evidences from the police. In these
circumstances, it does not appear just and proper to act upon the case filed
on behalf of the complainant Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal
Procedure, The complaint filed on behalf of the complainant Under Section
156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure will be treated as complaint case and if so
desired, the complainant may present her statements against the Accused
persons Under Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter,
registration will be considered.
The case is fixed for further action.
The case may be put up for further action on 13.12.21.
1 2 . By the above order, the JMFC came to the conclusion that, prima facie,
"occurrence of the offence by the Accused persons" was "shown". Nonetheless, the
JMFC 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 Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. The JMFC proceeded to
treat the complaint as a complaint case by granting liberty to the Appellant to be
present for the recording of her statements Under Sections 200 and 202 Code of

22-06-2023 (Page 5 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

Criminal Procedure.
13. The order of the JMFC was questioned by the Appellant Under Section 482 Code
of Criminal Procedure. By an order dated 6 January 2022, a Single Judge of the High
Court dismissed the application. The High Court held that the JMFC was not under an
obligation to direct the police to register the FIR and the use of the expression "may"
in Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure indicated that the JMFC had the
discretion to direct the complainant to examine witnesses Under Sections 200 and
202 Code of Criminal Procedure, instead of directing an investigation Under Section
156(3). The High Court also held that if the JMFC decided to proceed by examining
witnesses Under Sections 200 and 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure, she would still
have the option of seeking an investigation by the police, at that stage, by directing
an inquiry Under Section 202.
14. We have heard Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, Mr. R Basant, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second
Respondent, Mr. Abhay Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the third to sixth
Respondents and Mr. Gopal Jha, counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
1 5 . First, we find it appropriate to reiterate the duty of police to register an FIR
whenever a cognizable offence is made out in a complaint. A Constitution Bench of
this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/1166/2013 :
(2014) 2 SCC 1 has laid out the position of law as summarized in the following
extract of the decision:
119. Therefore, in view of various counterclaims regarding registration or
non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the
police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a
situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable
offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be
registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of
preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as
to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information
given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no
other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not
relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information
is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information
is credible, etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the
investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be
seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information
given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the
complainant for filing a false FIR.
1 6 . We cannot help but note that the police's inaction in this case is most
unfortunate. It is every police officer's bounden duty to carry out his or her functions
in a public-spirited manner. The police must be cognizant of the fact that they are
usually the first point of contact for a victim of a crime or a complainant. They must
abide by the law and enable the smooth registration of an FIR. Needless to say, they
must treat all members of the public in a fair and impartial manner. This is all the
more essential in cases of sexual harassment or violence, where victims (who are
usually women) face great societal stigma when they attempt to file a complaint. It is
no secret that women's families often do not approve of initiating criminal
proceedings in cases of sexual harassment. Various quarters of society attempt to
persuade the survivor not to register a complaint or initiate other formal proceedings,

22-06-2023 (Page 6 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

and they often succeed. Finally, visiting the police station and interacting with police
officers can be an intimidating experience for many. This discomfort is often
compounded if the reason for visiting the police station is to complain of a sexual
offence.
1 7 . This being the case, the police ought not to create yet another obstacle by
declining to register an FIR despite receiving a complaint regarding sexual
harassment. Rather, they should put the complainant at ease and try to create an
atmosphere free from fear. They ought to be sensitive to her mental state and the
fact that she may have recently been subjected to a traumatic experience.
18. 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 Under Section 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure. 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.
19. Second, we deal with the issue of the discretion granted to a Magistrate vis-à-vis
the exercise of powers Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. On this
issue, the High Court has held that the JMFC was not under an obligation to direct the
police to register the FIR and the use of the expression "may" in Section 156(3) Code
of Criminal Procedure indicated that the JMFC had the discretion to direct the
complainant to examine witnesses Under Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal
Procedure, instead of directing an investigation Under Section 156(3).
2 0 . A division bench of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
MANU/SC/8179/2007 : (2008) 2 SCC 409 expounded upon the Magistrate's powers
Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this decision, the Court
noted:
11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance
that the police station is not registering his FIR Under Section 154 Code of
Criminal Procedure, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police Under
Section 154(3) Code of Criminal Procedure by an application in writing. Even
if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is
still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is
held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application Under Section
156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate concerned.
If such an application Under Section 156(3) is filed before the
Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and
also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where,
according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was
made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the
investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
...
13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi
(JT vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been
registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually
making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper,
such a person can approach the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) Code of
Criminal Procedure, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper
investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he
thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a

22-06-2023 (Page 7 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

 Magistrate enjoys Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure.
...
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police
performing its duties under Chapter XII Code of Criminal Procedure. In
cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its
duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily,
he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation
properly, and can monitor the same.
...
1 7 . In our opinion Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure is wide
enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for
ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order
registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate
is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being
done by the police. Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, though
briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such
incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
...
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the
police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police
Under Section 154(3) Code of Criminal Procedure or other police officer
referred to in Section 36 Code of Criminal Procedure. If despite approaching
the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his
grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate Under Section
156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure instead of rushing to the High Court by
way of a writ petition or a petition Under Section 482 Code of Criminal
Procedure. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint
Under Section 200 Code of Criminal Procedure. Why then should writ
petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many
alternative remedies?
(emphasis supplied)
21. It is clear from the above extract that the Magistrate has wide powers Under
Section 156(3) which ought to be exercised towards meeting the ends of justice. A
two-judge Bench of this Court in Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric Power
Construction Corporation, MANU/SC/0539/2010 : (2010) 8 SCC 206 further clarified
the powers of a Magistrate and held that whenever a cognizable offence is made out
on the bare reading of complaint, the Magistrate may direct police to investigate:
23. To make it clear and in respect of doubt raised by Mr. Singhvi to proceed
Under Section 156(3) of the Code, what is required is a bare reading of the
complaint and if it discloses a cognizable offence, then the Magistrate instead
of applying his mind to the complaint for deciding whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, may direct the police for investigation. In
the case on hand, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court rightly pointed out that the Magistrate did not apply his mind to
the complaint for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding and, therefore, we are of the view that the Magistrate has not
committed any illegality in directing the police for investigation. In the facts

22-06-2023 (Page 8 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

 and circumstances, it cannot be said that while directing the police to
register FIR, the Magistrate has committed any illegality. As a matter of fact,
even after receipt of such report, the Magistrate Under Section 190(1) (b)
may or may not take cognizance of offence. In other words, he is not bound
to take cognizance upon submission of the police report by the investigating
officer, hence, by directing the police to file charge-sheet or final report and
to hold investigation with a particular result cannot be construed that the
Magistrate has exceeded his power as provided in Sub-section (3) of Section
156.
22. In the present case, the narration of facts makes it clear that upon the invocation
of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, the JMFC came to the conclusion that serious allegations had been
levelled against the Accused by the Appellant and, that, from a perusal of the
documents in this regard, the statements of the complainant were satisfactory. After
taking note of the fact that the police had at an earlier stage reported that the
occurrence of an incident or offence was not found, the JMFC opined that, from the
facts which were set out by the complainant in the complaint, prima facie, the
occurrence of an offence was shown.
2 3 . 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. An important fact to take note of, which ought to have been,
but has not been considered by either the Trial Court or the High Court, is that the
Appellant had sought the production of DVRs containing the audio-video recording of
the CCTV footage of the then Vice-Chancellor's (i.e., the second Respondent)
chamber. As a matter of fact, the Institute itself had addressed communications to
the second Respondent directing the production of the recordings, noting that these
recordings had been 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 had even filed a complaint with PS Gole Ka Mandir on 29
October 2021 for registering an FIR against the second Respondent for theft of the
DVRs.
2 4 . 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 Section 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 Code of Criminal
Procedure, the matter ought to be sent to the police for investigation.
2 5 . Especially in cases alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault or any similar
criminal allegation wherein the victim has possibly already been traumatized, the
Courts should not further burden the complainant and should press upon the police
to investigate. Due regard must be had to the fact that it is not possible for the
complainant to retrieve important evidence regarding her complaint. It may not be
possible to arrive at the truth of the matter in the absence of such evidence. The
complainant would then be required to prove her case without being able to bring
relevant evidence (which is potentially of great probative value) on record, which
would be unjust.

22-06-2023 (Page 9 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

2 6 . In this backdrop, we are clearly of the view that the JMFC ought to have
exercised jurisdiction Under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure to direct
the police to investigate.
27. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to decide upon the veracity of the
allegations in the complaint, save and except to underscore the importance of an
investigation by the police in a matter where the CCTV footage (or other evidence) is
not under the possession or control of the Appellant, but to be inquired into in the
course of an investigation by the police. The discretion which has been conferred
upon the Magistrate by Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, must be exercised
in a judicious manner.
28. In the facts of the present case and bearing in mind the position of law which
has been laid down by this Court, recourse to the jurisdiction Under Section 156(3)
Code of Criminal Procedure was warranted.
29. For the above reasons, we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment of
the High Court and to direct that the JMFC Gwalior shall, in terms of the observations
contained above, order an investigation by the police Under Section 156(3) Code of
Criminal Procedure. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, including the
need for a fair investigation, we direct that the investigation shall be supervised by a
woman officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police to be nominated by the
DIG of the zone concerned. The judgment of the High Court dated 6 January 2022
shall accordingly stand set aside. The directions which have been issued by the JMFC
to the effect that the complaint could be treated as a complaint case shall
accordingly, to that extent, stand set aside and be substituted in terms of the
directions which have been issued above.
30. Finally, we wish to once again reiterate the importance of courts dealing with
complainants of sexual harassment and sexual assault in a sensitive manner. It is
important for all courts to remain cognizant of the fact that the legal process tends to
be even more onerous for complainants who are potentially dealing with trauma and
societal shame due to the unwarranted stigma attached to victims of sexual
harassment and assault. At this juncture, especially in cases where the police fails to
address the grievance of such complainants, the Courts have an important
responsibility. As the Delhi High Court held in Virender v. State of NCT of Delhi,
courts have to remain alive to both treating the victim sensitively while also
discharging the onerous task of ensuring that the complete truth is brought on record
so as to facilitate adjudication and answering the basic question regarding the
complicity of the Accused in the commission of the offence. In that case, the High
Court held that:
2 2 . It is to be noted that the embarrassment, and reservations of those
concerned with the proceedings including the prosecutrix, witnesses, counsel
may result in a camouflage of the trauma of the victim's experience. The
judge has to be conscious of these factors and rise above any such
reservations to ensure that they do not cloud the real facts and the actions
which are attributable to the Accused persons. The trial courts must be
alive to the onerous responsibility which rests on their shoulders
and be sensitive in cases involving sexual abuse.
(emphasis supplied)
31. While the Delhi High Court made these observations while dealing with a case of
rape, courts must remain alive to their duty to treat victims sensitively in cases
alleging all forms of sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Courts must try to

22-06-2023 (Page 10 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

ensure that the process of attempting to bring alleged perpetrators to justice is not
onerous for the victims. Aggrieved persons should not have to run from pillar to post
for the mere registration of a complaint and initiation of investigation especially when
a cognizable offence is prima facie made out in their complaint.
32. In Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0193/2021a two-judge
Bench of this Court took note of the "entrenched paternalistic and misogynistic
attitudes that are regrettably reflected at times in judicial orders and judgments." In
that case, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat observed and we reiterate:
31. The role of all courts is to make sure that the survivor can rely on their
impartiality and neutrality, at every stage in a criminal proceeding, where she
is the survivor and an aggrieved party. Even an indirect undermining of this
responsibility cast upon the court, by permitting discursive formations on
behalf of the Accused, that seek to diminish his agency, or underplay his role
as an active participant (or perpetrator) of the crime, could in many cases,
shake the confidence of the rape survivor (or accuser of the crime) in the
impartiality of the court. The current attitude regarding crimes against
women typically is that "grave" offences like rape are not tolerable and
offenders must be punished. This, however, only takes into consideration
rape and other serious forms of gender-based physical violence. The
challenges Indian women face are formidable: they include a misogynistic
society with entrenched cultural values and beliefs, bias (often sub-
conscious) about the stereotypical role of women, social and political
structures that are heavily male-centric, most often legal enforcement
structures that either cannot cope with, or are unwilling to take strict and
timely measures. Therefore, reinforcement of this stereotype, in court
utterances or orders, through considerations which are extraneous to the
case, would impact fairness.
...
43. The instances spelt out in the present judgment are only illustrations;
the idea is that the greatest extent of sensitivity is to be displayed in the
judicial approach, language and reasoning adopted by the judge. Even a
solitary instance of such order or utterance in court, reflects adversely on the
entire judicial system of the country, undermining the guarantee to fair
justice to all, and especially to victims of sexual violence (of any kind from
the most aggravated to the so-called minor offences).
33. The legislature has, at places, moulded criminal procedure to enable victims of
sexual crimes to seek justice. This has been done in recognition of the gravity of
sexual crimes and the need to handle such cases in an appropriately sensitive
manner. For instance, Section 327 Code of Criminal Procedure provides for in camera
trials to be conducted with respect to offences punishable Under Sections 376, 376A,
376B, 376C or 376D of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
34. This Court, too, has had its role to play in ensuring that justice does not remain
inaccessible. In State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat, MANU/SC/1411/2017 :
(2018) 11 SCC 163 this Court directed that special centres be set up in each state in
order to facilitate depositions by vulnerable witnesses, including victims of sexual
offences. In Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0080/2022a
two judge bench of this Court (of which one of us, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. was a
part) supplemented the directions issued in Bandu @ Daulat (supra) with respect to
setting up such special centres.

22-06-2023 (Page 11 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association

35. It is the duty and responsibility of trial courts to deal with the aggrieved persons
before them in an appropriate manner, by:
a. Allowing proceedings to be conducted in camera, where appropriate,
either Under Section 327 Code of Criminal Procedure or when the case
otherwise involves the aggrieved person (or other witness) testifying as to
their experience of sexual harassment/violence;
b. Allowing the installation of a screen to ensure that the aggrieved woman
does not have to see the Accused while testifying or in the alternative,
directing the Accused to leave the room while the aggrieved woman's
testimony is being recorded;
c. Ensuring that the counsel for the Accused conducts the cross-examination
of the aggrieved woman in a respectful fashion and without asking
inappropriate questions, especially regarding the sexual history of the
aggrieved woman. Cross-examination may also be conducted such that the
counsel for the Accused submits her questions to the court, who then poses
them to the aggrieved woman;
d. Completing cross-examination in one sitting, as far as possible.
36. Before closing, it is necessary to clarify that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the allegations which have been levelled in the complaint. It is for the
investigating officer to investigate those allegations in accordance with law.
37. The appeal shall stand allowed in the above terms.
38. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

1 "CrPC"
2 "Institute"
3 "JMFC"
4 "ICC"

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

22-06-2023 (Page 12 of 12) www.manupatra.com Dwarka Court Bar Association