Police Can't Refuse To Register FIR Under Section 18-A Or Treat SC/ST Atrocity Allegations As Civil Dispute: Madras High Court
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri held that police officers cannot decline to register a First Information Report on complaints from members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities alleging loss of possession over assigned land by describing the issue as a civil dispute. The Court observed that Section 18-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act bars any preliminary enquiry when the information points to an offence under the statute, and that the character of the dispute does not diminish the police duty to record an FIR once a cognisable offence is indicated. Upholding the Special Court’s direction, the Bench ordered registration of the FIR and mandated investigation by an officer unconnected with the earlier decision to close the complaint.
The matter arose from a complaint lodged by a member of the Scheduled Caste community alleging illegal occupation of ancestral assignment lands, commonly referred to as Panchami lands. The lands in question, measuring 60 cents and 22 cents, were originally assigned to the complainant’s ancestor in 1927. The complaint alleged dispossession by private individuals. A civil suit concerning the same property was already pending. The complaint was initially registered as CSR No.457/2021, and the police issued summons and conducted an enquiry. However, the Sub-Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police declined to register a First Information Report, treating the matter as a civil dispute.
The complainant approached the Special Court under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which directed registration of FIR against the officers for alleged neglect of duty under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The officers challenged this order, contending that the complaint was civil in nature, that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was required before proceeding against public servants, and that departmental recommendation under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act was a precondition. They also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyankaa Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding procedural compliance for invoking Section 156(3).
The respondents argued that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences under the SC/ST Act, which mandated registration of FIR without preliminary enquiry under Section 18-A. They submitted that sanction was not required at the stage of investigation and that departmental recommendation was not a statutory prerequisite. The Special Court’s order was defended as consistent with statutory provisions and necessary to ensure impartial investigation.
The Court recorded that “Orders under Section 156(3) must disclose judicial satisfaction that the complaint prima facie reveals commission of a cognizable offence, and that police action is warranted.” It stated that the impugned order discussed the assignment nature of the property, the complainant’s caste status, the police issuing summons without registering FIR, the embargo under Section 18-A, and the competence under Rule 7. The Court observed that “The order is not a perfunctory one-liner. It meets the application-of-mind standard for a 156(3) direction.”
On the issue of preliminary enquiry, the Court stated: “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.” It further recorded: “In such a statutory setting, the officers could not supplant registration by a roving ‘civil-dispute’ enquiry.”
Regarding the pendency of civil proceedings, the Court observed: “The pendency of O.S. No.253/2021 neither immunizes conduct constituting offences under the SC/ST Act nor authorizes the police to decline FIR. Criminal law and civil remedies can co-exist if the factual matrix supports both.”
On sanction, the Court stated: “A direction to register an FIR and investigate does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence against the public servant. Consequently, the absence of sanction does not invalidate the direction under Section 156(3).”
On departmental recommendation, the Court recorded: “The statute does not prescribe an administrative/departmental recommendation as a pre-condition for registration of FIR or investigation. Departmental measures may proceed in parallel, since they are not jurisdictional fetters upon criminal law.”
The Court also noted compliance with Priyankaa Srivastava: “The record shows a prior police approach and CSR No.457/2021, failure to register FIR in an SC/ST complaint, and recourse to the Court with materials. The purpose deterring casual invocation of Section 156(3) stands served.”
Finally, the Court observed: “The Special Court has appropriately insulated the investigation by directing assignment to a competent officer other than the present DSP, who had pre-judged the matter as civil.”
The Court directed: “Hence, the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 in Crl.M.P. No.347 of 2022 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR) Tiruchirappali, is affirmed.”
“If FIR pursuant to the impugned order is not yet registered, the jurisdictional police shall register FIR forthwith on the defacto complainant’s complaint and report compliance to the Special Court. Investigation shall be conducted by a competent officer as per the SC/ST (POA) Rules, 1995, other than the present DSP who previously opined on the complaint, and shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”
The Court clarified: “It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate merits inter se the private parties regarding title/possession; the civil suit shall be decided independently on its own evidence and merits and in accordance with law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Muthu Saravanan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Sekar, Advocate; Mr. S.S. Manoj, Government Advocate
Case Title: Suriya & Another v. Gandhi & State
Neutral Citation: CRL RC(MD)No.479 of 2022
Case Number: Criminal Revision Case No.479 of 2022
Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri
