Police Can't Refuse To Register FIR On Land Dispossession Complaints By SC/ST Community By Terming It As Civil Dispute: Madras High Court

Justice Victoria Gowri noted that as per Section 18A of the Schedules castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the officers could not conduct a preliminary enquiry when an information disclosed offence under the Act. The court noted that the nature of the allegation did not dilute the duty of the police to register an FIR once the complaint disclosed a cognisable offence.

“Post-amendment, Section 18-A expressly provides that no preliminary enquiry shall be required for registration of an FIR when information discloses an offence under the SC/ST Act. The complaint alleges wrongful occupation/dispossession of assignment lands belonging to an SC family, allegations that, on their face, attract Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and potentially 3(1)(p). In such a statutory setting, the officers could not supplant registration by a roving “civil dispute” enquiry. Whether the land is indeed “Panchami/assignment land,” whether an alienation is void, and what reliefs follow are matters for investigation and, where necessary, civil adjudication. They do not dilute the duty to register FIR once the complaint ex facie discloses cognizable offences under the SC/ST Act,” the court noted.

The court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by two officers, the Sub Inspector of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, against the order of the Special Judge directing registration of FIR against the officers for alleged neglect of duty under Section 4 of the SC/St Act and Sections 166A and 167 of IPC.

The de facto complainant, a member belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, had approached the officers alleging that 60 cents of land assigned to his ancestors in 1927 were being illegally occupied by some other persons. The two officers issued summons and conducted an inquiry and thereafter declined to register an FIR on the premise that the dispute was civil in nature.

When the complainant approached the Special Court, the court noted that the officers' conduct was legally impermissible in view of the statutory bar under Section 18A of the Act. the Special Court thus forwarded the complaint to another police station to register FIR and to conduct an investigation other than the present DSP.

The officers argued that there was no prima facie case as the complaint was purely civil in nature. It was also argued that a prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC was not obtained in the present case for registering an FIR against the officers. It was also argued that under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act, a departmental enquiry/recommendation was a precondition to proceed against the public servants, and the order was illegal in the absence of the same.

The Government Advocate, however, argued that the complaint alleged dispossession of a Scheduled Caste member from their ancestral assignment land, which was a cognisable offence under the Act. He thus argued that the officers' conduct of conducting a preliminary enquiry and closing the complaint as “civil” was one circumventing the statutory mandate, and thus amounted to neglect of duty under Section 4 of the Act.

The court observed that the criminal law and civil remedies could coexist if the facts of the case supported both. The court added that the pendency of title/injunction suit could not be used to deflect the statutory duty in a special penal law enacted to protect the members of the community from dispossession and socio-economic exclusion.

The court also rejected the officers' argument of prior sanction and noted that a sanction was to protect the officers at the stage of cognisance and registration of FIR did not amount to taking cognisance of the offence against the officer. The court also observed that neglect of statutory duty under a special law was not an integral act in the discharge of duty, to be protected by way of sanction.

“Sanction protects bona fide official acts at the stage of cognizance. A direction to register an FIR and investigate does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence against the public servant. Moreover, neglect of statutory duty under a special protective statute is not an integral act in discharge of official duty so as to cloak the alleged inaction with Section 197 Cr.P.C., 1973, immunity at the pre investigation stage. Consequently, the absence of sanction does not invalidate the direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973,” the court said.

The court thus dismissed the revision, noting that the special judge's order restored statutory discipline and that invoking the revisional jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. C. Muthu Saravanan

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. B. Sekar, Mr. S. S. Manoj, Government Advocate

Case Title: Suriya and Another v. Gandhi and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 438

Case No: CRL RC(MD)No.479 of 2022