S. 4 SC/ST Act | Dissatisfaction With Police Probe Alone No Ground To Prosecute Cops For Wilful Neglect: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the dissatisfaction of a complainant with a police investigation or the failure of policeto invoke particular provisions of the SC-ST Act 1989, does not by itself constitute "wilful neglect of duty" by public servants under Section 4 of the Act.

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that prosecution under Section 4 (Punishment for neglect of duties) requires that it must be shown that there was a specific statutory duty and there was a demonstrable omission in performing that duty. It added that material must indicate that the omission was wilful or deliberate.

The Court further said that as per Section 4 proviso, an administrative inquiry and recommendation is necessary for initiating proceedings against a public servant.

"The provision cannot be invoked merely because the complainant is dissatisfied with official action or because an FIR and charge-sheet exist in a related criminal case", the Court observed.

The Court made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by Guddo, a Scheduled Caste woman, against a Ghaziabad Special Court's order refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against 7 public servants for alleged wilful neglect of duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.

Case in brief

The appellant alleged that her minor daughter, who was working as a domestic help at the house of a couple in 2020, went missing. According to her, after her daughter was recovered, a medical examination confirmed rape and pregnancy.

She alleged that despite submitting a written complaint along with her caste certificate to the Station House Officer of Kaushambi Police Station on March 15, 2020, the police failed to register an FIR or take appropriate action.

The appellant further alleged that the investigating officer had conducted a biased investigation and failed to add the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act despite the victim's statements. It was also alleged that the IO did not proceed against the actual perpetrators.

She also questioned the conduct of the supervising officer and senior police officials who allegedly conducted a one-sided inquiry into her complaints.

However, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad, dismissed her petition seeking prosecution of the 7 public servants. Hence, she approached the High Court under Section 14-A(1) of the Act.

High Court's observations

In its order, the High Court noted that the FIR was registered on February 7, 2020, based on the appellant's own written report under Section 366 IPC against unknown persons, which contradicted her argument that no FIR had been registered.

The bench also noted that during the investigation, the IO recorded statements of the informant, the victim, and other witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, inspected the spot, and filed a charge sheet against an accused. The trial under the POCSO Act was also ongoing.

Regarding the appellant's grievance that the IO had failed to invoke the relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act despite the victim's statements, the bench remarked thus:

"A failure to apply particular sections after an FIR has been registered and investigated is, at most, a matter of investigation and trial. It is not wilful neglect of a duty specified in Section 4(2)".

The Court also examined allegations concerning the allegedly defective charge sheet, the non-arrest of other persons, the handling of representations by senior officers, the inquiry into the complaints, and the responses sent to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and to the appellant's RTI applications.

It held that these grievances, even taken at their highest, reflected complaints of administrative inaction or dissatisfaction with the reasons given.

Ther Court said that these, on their own, did not establish an offence under Section 4. The Court said that allegations of caste-based bias, collusion, or abuse of power also required specific facts and supporting material.

The High Court explained that Section 4(1) penalizes a public servant who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and who wilfully neglects duties required under the Act or its Rules.

Finding that the application did not identify a specific statutory duty neglected by the officers or establish a wilful omission, and that the required administrative recommendation was not demonstrated, the High Court held that no prima facie case under Section 4 was made out.

The Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the Special Judge's order and dismissed the appeal.