Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR Direction Against Police Officers Under Section 4 SC/ST Act, Holds Administrative Inquiry a Condition Precedent

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside a Sessions Court order directing FIR registration against a Circle Officer and SHO under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, ruling that an administrative inquiry recommendation is mandatory before any such direction.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has quashed a direction issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, ordering the police to register an FIR against two serving police officers under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Alok Mahra, sitting singly, held that the proviso to Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act makes a recommendation from an administrative inquiry a condition precedent before any criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant for dereliction of duty under that provision. The Sessions Court had bypassed this requirement entirely, rendering its direction legally unsustainable.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The applicants, Bhupendra Singh and another, were serving as Circle Officer and Station House Officer, Mukhani, at the relevant time. Respondent No. 2, Pramila Devi, had filed a complaint alleging that one Girish Chandra Tiwari hurled caste-related abuses and committed assault against her on 4 January 2023. When the police did not register her complaint, she moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, registered as Complaint Case No. 46 of 2023. That application was dismissed in default on 18 March 2024.

Two months later, on 22 May 2024, Pramila Devi filed a fresh application under Section 156(3) CrPC on the same set of facts. She did not disclose to the court that an earlier application had already been filed and dismissed in default. The District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, by order dated 10 June 2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 29 of 2024, directed the police to register an FIR against Girish Chandra Tiwari under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 452, 323, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Because the applicants were the Circle Officer and SHO responsible for the area, the Sessions Court additionally directed registration of an FIR against them under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for alleged neglect of duty.

The applicants challenged that direction before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the order insofar as it directed an FIR against them.

What Section 4 of the SC/ST Act Requires

Section 4 of the SC/ST Act punishes public servants who are not members of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and who wilfully neglect duties imposed on them by the Act. The duties listed in Section 4(2) include registering complaints and FIRs, reading out information to informants, recording statements of victims and witnesses, and filing charge sheets within sixty days.

The proviso to Section 4(2) states that charges against a public servant in this regard shall be booked only on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry. Section 4(3) further provides that cognizance of any dereliction of duty under Section 4(2) shall be taken by the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, which shall then give directions for penal proceedings.

Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. K.K. Tiwari, argued that the Sessions Judge had directed FIR registration without ordering or awaiting any administrative inquiry, in direct violation of this proviso. They also pointed out that the complaint itself was filed more than two months after the alleged incident of 4 January 2023, and that the fresh Section 156(3) application suppressed the earlier dismissal.

The Supreme Court Precedent Applied

The applicants relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of GNCT of Delhi and Others v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant (Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2021). In that case, the Supreme Court examined whether initiating proceedings against a Station House Officer under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act without an administrative inquiry was legally valid.

The Supreme Court held that an administrative inquiry presupposes an examination of the circumstances in which a public servant failed to act as required, and whether that failure was wilful. It reasoned that Section 4(3), which enables the Special Court to take cognizance of dereliction of duty, incorporates by reference the requirement in the proviso to Section 4(2). Limiting the proviso's operation to the stage of framing charges, rather than the initiation of criminal proceedings, would defeat the very safeguard the proviso was designed to provide.

The Supreme Court in Praveen Kumar observed that “the absence of recommendation would bar taking cognizance by the Court.” It held that jurisdiction to proceed under Section 4(2) is attracted only on the recommendation of an administrative inquiry, after which the Special Court may take cognizance under Section 4(3). The High Court of Delhi's direction for penal prosecution in that case, issued without following this procedure, was set aside as not conforming to the mandate of law.

The Supreme Court also approved the Delhi High Court's earlier view in Bijender Singh v. State and Another, which had held that the enquiry report must be obtained before criminal proceedings are initiated, not merely before the framing of charges.

How Justice Mahra Reasoned

Justice Alok Mahra accepted the applicants' submissions. The court found that the Sessions Judge had directed FIR registration against the applicants under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act without ordering any administrative inquiry and without any recommendation from such an inquiry being placed before it. This was a direct violation of the proviso to Section 4(2).

The court held that the Sessions Judge had acted without application of mind and without following the mandatory statutory procedure. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The court concluded that this was a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice.

The court also noted the conduct of respondent No. 2 in filing a fresh Section 156(3) application without disclosing that an earlier application on the same facts had been dismissed in default, characterising this as approaching the court without clean hands.

Order

Justice Alok Mahra allowed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1080 of 2024. The order dated 10 June 2024 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 29 of 2024 was set aside insofar as it directed registration of an FIR against the applicants under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The entire proceedings arising from that direction against the applicants were also quashed. The order was pronounced on 21 May 2026.