Administrative Enquiry Mandatory Before FIR Against Public Servants Under SC/ST Act: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that criminal proceedings under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be initiated against a public servant without a prior administrative enquiry as mandated by the proviso to Section 4(2) of the Act.

Reiterating the above principle as established in various Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held the Sessions Court had acted in violation of the statutory requirement and set aside the Sessions Court's direction for registration of an FIR against the police officers for alleged dereliction of duty, holding that proceedings under Section 4 cannot be initiated without the recommendation of an administrative enquiry.

The matter arose from a petition filed by two police officers who were serving as the Circle Officer and Station House Officer, Mukhani, at the relevant time. They challenged an order of the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital directing registration of an FIR against them under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. The impugned order had been passed on an application under Section 156(3) CrPC filed by a woman who alleged that she had been abused using caste-related remarks and assaulted.

While directing registration of an FIR against the primary accused for offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act, the Sessions Court had also directed registration of an FIR against the police officers under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for allegedly failing to perform their statutory duties.

It was argued by the officers that the Sessions Judge had mechanically directed registration of the FIR without complying with the mandatory requirement contained in the proviso to Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act. It was contended that before any criminal action could be initiated against a public servant for neglect of duties under Section 4, an administrative enquiry was indispensable. The applicants further pointed out that no such enquiry had been conducted in the present case. They also submitted that the complainant had earlier filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC on the same allegations, which had been dismissed in default, and that this fact was not disclosed while filing the subsequent application, thus signalling that the complainant woman had not approached the court with “clean hands”.

Reliance was placed on State of GNCT of Delhi and Others Vs. Praveen Kumar @Prashant to argue the above.

The High Court examined Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, particularly the proviso to Section 4(2), which stipulates that charges against a public servant for neglect of duties shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry.

The Court further relied upon the judgement in State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant, where it was held that an administrative enquiry serves as a safeguard to determine whether the alleged omission or commission of the public servant was bona fide or wilful. The Supreme Court had further held that “the absence of recommendation would bar taking cognisance by the Court… if a complaint without recommendation is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate before proceeding further to keep his decision conforming to section 4(2) read with the proviso, calls for a report/recommendation from the Department against the named public servant. The Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court based on an administrative enquiry report can take cognizance of the alleged offence and thereon direct penal proceeding”.

Relying on the above precedent, the High Court held that “ the learned Session Judge erred by straightaway directing for lodging of FIR under Section 4 of SCST Act against the applicants, who are public servants in violation of proviso to Section 4(2) of the SCST Act.

Hence, the applicants deserve to be acquitted of the charges for the said offence. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice”.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the Sessions Court's order insofar as it directed registration of an FIR against the applicants under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.

Case: Bhupendra Singh and Another Versus State of Uttarakhand And Another

(Criminal Misc. Application No. 1080 of 2024)

Click Here To Read/Download Order