Rajasthan High Court Upholds Order Taking Cognizance Against Police Officer For Allegedly Hurling Caste Based Abuses

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Special Court's order rejecting the closure report submitted by the police and taking cognizance against accused Station House Officer for offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Justice Farjand Ali said noted that the legal as well as the factual aspects of the matter have been duly appreciated with adequate consideration of the material available before the Special Judge before passing the order taking cognizance against the accused.

“It is evincing from perusal of the final report that the forwarding officer of the document exonerating the appellant is none other than the appellant himself, thus, a cloud of doubt is looming over the final report submitted by the investigating officer. The investigating officer and the forwarding officer/appellant could have been working in cahoots with each other and as such, there is no major difference in hierarchical order of their ranks,” the Court observed.

It was the case of the respondent no. 2 (complainant before the Special Judge) that she had gone to Police Station (P.S.), Chohtan along with her husband to inquire regarding the complaint sent by the Collector to the Police Station on May 28, 2022.

Upon such inquiry, appellant, who was the then SHO of P.S. Chohtan got angry and started hurling profanities at the husband, including caste-based expletives as well as began to hit him. When the wife tried to intervene to break the tension, the appellant herein pushed her to the floor and her clothes also got disordered.

Aggrieved by such action of appellant, the respondent no. 2 filed a complaint on June 21, 2022 before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barmer for which an investigation under Section 156(3) was ordered by the said Judge.

An FIR under Sections 323, 341, 354, 354B, 166 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act, 1989 against the appellant. After conducting investigation, a negative final report was submitted stating that after complete investigation.

The complainant/respondent No. 2 was dissatisfied with the result of the investigation and filed a protest petition before the Special Judge and got her husband and herself examined under Sections 200-202 CrPC. The Trial Court did not accept the final report and took cognizance under Sections 341 and 323 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act against the appellant and issued process against him vide impugned order dated July 05, 2023.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, an appeal was preferred by the appellant.

The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial judge has exercised his judicial discretion while taking cognizance but in a very cursory and cryptic manner and without considering the definite grounds mentioned in the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Officer.

On the other hand, the public prosecutor submitted that the trial court is empowered to take cognizance even if the final report submitted by the agency concludes that no offence has been committed by the accused.

The Court noted that cognizance does not mean a detailed examination of the evidence so as to conduct a mini trial before an actual trial but a look at the report and other mentioned documents is enough to constitute taking of cognizance.

The Court recorded its surprise at the fact that the report vindicating the appellant was forwarded by himself in light of the principle of natural justice which provides that nobody should be a judge in his own cause.

“As the appellant was an officer responsible for protection of law and order as well as the public, it would leave the citizens helpless if he would indulge in acts that hamper the decorousness of his role and that become a hindrance in citizens seeking help from the police. Police is the first door that citizens usually knock at when endeavouring to seek justice. In such matters, if ears are not lent to the complaint of the distressed citizen, then it would enrage the public and on the other hand, it would encourage discharging of duty in a capricious manner,” the Court said.

The Court noted that the grounds mentioned in the Final Report are not only absurd and purported but seem to be apparently unconvincing.

Thus, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

Case Title: Bhuta Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case no.: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1482/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment