SC/ST Complaints Alleging Dispossession From Ancestral Lands Cannot Be Screened As Civil Disputes At Threshold: Madras High Court
The Court held that when a Scheduled Caste complainant alleges dispossession from ancestral assignment lands, authorities cannot filter the grievance through a civil-dispute lens, and must register and investigate the case under the SC/ST Act rather than conduct an informal enquiry.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench
The Madras High Court has held that allegations of dispossession of ancestral assignment lands belonging to a Scheduled Caste family attract the statutory mandate of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, requiring immediate registration and investigation of an FIR.
The High Court emphasised that such complaints cannot be examined through a civil-dispute prism at the preliminary stage.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the Special Court’s order directing registration of an FIR against police officers for allegedly declining to act on a Scheduled Caste complainant’s grievance regarding occupation of Panchami/assignment lands.
A Single Bench comprising Justice L. Victoria Gowri, upon hearing the matter, held: “The SC/ST Act is a remedial statute with a prophylactic design. When a complaint from a member of a Scheduled Caste alleges dispossession from ancestral assignment lands, the law does not permit public authorities to filter the grievance through a civil-dispute prism at the threshold. The mandate is to register, investigate, and then decide not to screen out by an informal enquiry”.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Muthu Saravanan, and the respondents were represented by S.S. Manoj, Government Advocate.
Background
The de facto complainant, a Scheduled Caste member, alleged illegal occupation of ancestral assignment lands by private individuals. Though a civil suit concerning title was pending, he approached the police and received a CSR number, but the Sub-Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police closed the complaint as “civil”.
The complainant then invoked Section 156(3) CrPC. The Special Court found that Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act prohibits preliminary enquiry and that the officers could not decline FIR registration once the complaint disclosed dispossession attracting Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), and 3(1)(p) of the Act.
The Special Court forwarded the complaint for FIR registration and directed investigation by a competent officer other than the DSP who had earlier closed the matter as civil.
Court’s Observation
The High Court, after examining the relevant records, held that the Special Court’s order satisfied the requirement of judicial application of mind under Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court observed that the complaint disclosed allegations of wrongful occupation of assignment lands belonging to a Scheduled Caste family, which constitute cognizable offences under the SC/ST Act.
The Court clarified that Section 18-A removes the scope for preliminary enquiry before FIR registration, stating that police officers cannot conduct civil-type assessments to decide whether to register an FIR when caste-based dispossession is alleged. Whether the land is assignment land, whether alienation is void, or whether civil remedies exist are matters for investigation or civil adjudication, but cannot derail registration of an FIR, the Court observed.
On the requirement of sanction, the Bench held that Section 197 CrPC does not apply at the FIR-registration stage and that neglect of statutory duty is not protected as an “official act” attracting sanction. Departmental recommendations under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act are not a jurisdictional prerequisite for FIR registration.
The Court further observed that the complainant had first approached the police (CSR 457/2021), thus satisfying Section 154(1) CrPC, and thereafter approached the Court only upon police inaction. The requirements emerging from Priyankaa Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh were therefore met.
The Court concluded that the officers’ refusal to register an FIR by terming the matter “civil” was contrary to the mandatory framework of the SC/ST Act, while stating that “the civil veneer of a title/injunction suit cannot be employed to deflect the statutory command in a special penal law enacted to protect members of Scheduled Castes from dispossession and social-economic exclusion”.
Conclusion
The High Court affirmed the Special Court’s direction to register an FIR on the Scheduled Caste complainant’s allegations of dispossession from assignment lands and to entrust the investigation to a competent officer other than the DSP who earlier closed the complaint.
The Criminal Revision Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Suriya & Another v. Gandhi & Another
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocate C. Muthu Saravanan
Respondents: Advocate B. Sekar, S.S. Manoj, Government Advocate