Uttarakhand HC Quashes FIR Direction Against Public Servants Under SC/ST Act, Holds Administrative Inquiry a Condition Precedent

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside a Sessions Judge's 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, in an order dated 21 May 2026, quashed a direction issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, requiring the police to register an FIR against two public servants — a Circle Officer and a Station House Officer — under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Alok Mahra, sitting singly, held that the Sessions Judge had acted in violation of the proviso to Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act by directing FIR registration without first obtaining a recommendation from an administrative inquiry. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to set aside the impugned order.

The Complaint and the Sessions Judge's Direction

The dispute arose from an incident on 4 January 2023, in which one Girish Chandra Tiwari allegedly hurled caste-related abuses and committed assault against respondent no. 2, Pramila Devi. When the police declined to register a complaint, she filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was 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, respondent no. 2 filed a fresh application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the same set of facts. By an order dated 10 June 2024, the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, 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 — Bhupendra Singh and another — were serving as Circle Officer and Station House Officer, Mukhani, at the relevant time, the Sessions Judge also directed registration of an FIR against them under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for alleged dereliction of duty in not registering the complaint.

The applicants challenged this direction before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the order insofar as it related to the direction against them.

The Mandatory Proviso Under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act

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 required under the Act. The duties enumerated in Section 4(2) include registering complaints and FIRs, recording statements of victims and witnesses, and filing charge sheets in the Special Court 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 inquiry.

Section 4(3) further provides that cognizance of any dereliction of duty referred to in Section 4(2) shall be taken by the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court, which shall then give directions for penal proceedings against the public servant.

Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. K.K. Tiwari, argued that the Sessions Judge had passed the impugned order without any application of mind and without following these mandatory provisions. They pointed out that the Sessions Judge had directed FIR registration without ordering an administrative inquiry, which they submitted was a sine qua non under the proviso.

Reliance on the Supreme Court's Ruling in State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar

The applicants placed reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of GNCT of Delhi and Others v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant (Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2021). In that case, the Supreme Court framed the question of whether initiating proceedings against a Station House Officer under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act conformed to the requirements of the provision.

The Supreme Court held that an administrative inquiry presupposes an inquiry into the circumstances in which a public servant had reason for not acting as expected by the Act, or whether the public servant wilfully neglected the assigned duties. It held that the reference to Section 4(2) in Section 4(3) includes the requirement in the proviso, meaning the recommendation of an administrative inquiry is necessary before cognizance is taken.

The Supreme Court reasoned that tapering the application of the proviso to a later stage — such as the framing of charges — would defeat the very safeguard the proviso intends to accord to a public servant. It observed that Section 4, in the absence of which dereliction of duty would have resulted only in disciplinary proceedings, now makes the same acts punishable with imprisonment of not less than six months. Given this severity, the requirement in the proviso must be treated as a condition precedent for taking cognizance under Section 4(3).

The Supreme Court further held that “the jurisdiction for infraction of sub-section (2) of section 4 is attracted only on the recommendation of the administrative enquiry.” It approved the Delhi High Court's view in Bijender Singh v. State and Anr. that the enquiry report must be obtained before criminal proceedings are initiated, not merely before the framing of charges.

The High Court's Reasoning

Justice Alok Mahra accepted the applicants' submissions. The court found that the Sessions Judge had erred by straightaway directing registration of an FIR under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act against the applicants without ordering an administrative inquiry. This was a direct violation of the proviso to Section 4(2).

The court also noted a procedural irregularity on the part of respondent no. 2: the earlier Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application, Complaint Case No. 46 of 2023, had been dismissed in default on 18 March 2024, and the fresh application filed on 22 May 2024 was on the same set of facts without disclosing the earlier dismissal. The court observed that the complainant had not approached the court with clean hands.

Given that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicants in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the court held it was a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Order

The High Court 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 — Pramila Devi v. Girish Chandra Tewari — was set aside insofar as it directed registration of an FIR against the applicants under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. The order was set aside only with respect to the applicants, Bhupendra Singh and another, and not as regards the direction against Girish Chandra Tiwari.