[S.18(1)(a) SC/ST Act] No Preliminary Enquiry Before Registration Of FIR If Complaint Discloses Cognizable Offence: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has highlighted that under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no preliminary enquiry should be conducted before registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the Act. Justice P Velmurugan noted that the intention of the legislature while inserting Section 18A(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act was to ensure immediate registration of complaints without procedural obstructions or administrative delays. “This provision [Section 18A(1)(a) of the Act] unequivocally bars any form of preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the Act. The legislative intent is to ensure immediate and unfiltered registration of complaints alleging caste-based atrocities, without procedural obstructions or administrative discretion,” the court said. The court also noted that as per Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, the investigation into offences under the Act should be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court added that compliance to this rule was mandatory and any investigation conducted by an officer below the rank prescribed is without authority and liable to be treated as null and void. The court was hearing a petition filed by Muniraj seeking directions to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police to take appropriate action against Mr. Thangadurai IPS (Superintendent of Police, Krishnagiri) and Mr Nagaraj (Inspector of Police, Hosur Town Police Station), and to direct the inspector to register a complaint filed by Muniraj. Muniraj belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and is a physically challenged person He submitted that his mother was granted land under the Tamil Nadu Government Land Ceiling Scheme in 1997 and that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the land. While so, some individuals fabricated revenue records with an intention to usurp the land, trespassed into his property and attempted to demolish a house constructed in the land. Muniraj also submitted that he was subjected to verbal abuse, including caste-based slurs and remarks targeting his physical disability. Muniraj further submitted that though he went to the police station immediately and gave a complaint, it was torn up by the respondent Inspector and Muniraj was made to sign another complaint drafted by the Inspector. He further submitted that though he sent representations to senior officers, the accused persons used their clout and prevented the registration of FIR. Muniraj then approached the Judicial Magistrate, who directed the Inspector to register FIR and conduct investigation as per law. Since no action was taken, he had filed the present plea. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that as per the directions of the Magistrate, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the report was forwarded to the Magistrate. The court noted that as per Section 14 of the Act, only a Special Court was vested with the power to try offences under the Act. The court thus observed that the Magistrate, in the present case, did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 156(3) CrPC which was related to an offence under the Act. The court thus held that the Magistrate's direction was against the express bar contained in the Act and any police action based on such action was vitiated and unsustainable in law. The court also noted that the investigation in the present case was conducted by an Inspector when the Act specifically states that it should be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The court thus opined that both the Magistrate and the Police have adopted an approach, disregarding the law. “This Court is of the considered view that the procedure adopted both by the learned Magistrate and the respondent police is in patent disregard of the statutory scheme under the SC/ST Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Such deviation from the mandatory safeguards undermines the rights of the victim and the purpose of the special legislation,” the court said. The court thus directed the Superintendent of Police to treat the complaint to the Magistrate as a complaint under the Act and register an FIR. The court added that the investigation shall be conducted as per the Act and final report was to be filed before the jurisdictional special court. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Thirumoorthy Counsel for Respondents: Dr. C. E. Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Case Title: Muniraj v The State and Others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 Case No: W.P.(Crl.) No.133 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

[S.18(1)(a) SC/ST Act] No Preliminary Enquiry Before Registration Of FIR If Complaint Discloses Cognizable Offence: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

[S.18(1)(a) SC/ST Act] No Preliminary Enquiry Before Registration Of FIR If Complaint Discloses Cognizable Offence: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers