The Madras High Court has held that a proposed accused, at the pre-cognisance stage, has no right of audience and he has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Special Court under the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [SC/ST Act] .

The Appeals before the High Court were filed challenging the orders directing the Station House Officer, Puliyangudi, to register a First Information Report and to register the case with reference to the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the subsequent order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tenkasi, declining to modify the orders in other criminal petitions.

The Single Bench of Justice S. Karthikeyan held, “When the applications were moved for condonation of the said delay by the petitioner/appellant, this Court raised the question of the very maintainability of the appeals, as they had been filed by the accused challenging the order directing investigation. Insofar as an order directing investigation by the police is concerned, the accused cannot be considered an aggrieved party. The law is well settled that, at the pre-cognizance stage, the accused has no right of audience. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Special Court under the SC/ST Act.”

“Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner/appellant, being a proposed accused, though not being an aggrieved party, may be given liberty to challenge the same by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum”, it added.

Advocate K. Prabhu represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate (Crl. Side) A.Robinson represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The defacto complainant/third respondent approached the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Tirunelveli, seeking a direction to the first respondent to register the First Information Report and a further direction for appointment of an Investigating Officer to conduct an investigation as required under Section 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. As per the impugned orders, the Special Court under the SC/ST Act directed the Station House Officer, Puliyangudi, to register the First Information Report. The petitioner/appellant was shown as an accused in the said complaint. However, the appeals were filed with a delay of 317 days.

Reasoning

Dealing with the aspect of the order directing investigation by the police, the Bench stated that, at the pre-cognisance stage, the petitioner/appellant had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Special Courtt.

The Bench explained, “It is trite that, at the stage of investigation, there shall be no interference, and the investigating agency must be given a free hand to investigate the offence. By directing an investigation, nothing has been finally decided by the Special Court against the prospective accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prospective accused is an aggrieved party for the purpose of maintaining an appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Act.”

The Bench concurred with the view of the Allahabad High Court in Kamlesh Meena and two others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and two others (2025) wherein it was held that the prospective accused have no locus standi to assail the direction for investigation under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the summoning/cognizance stage. The Bench thus held that the appeals were not maintainable and there was no necessity to condone the said delay.

The Bench also clarified, “Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner/appellant, being a proposed accused, though not being an aggrieved party, may be given liberty to challenge the same by filing appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.”

Thus, the Bench dismissed the petitions with such findings.

Cause Title: C.Kanmani v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Case No.: Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.14690 & 14691 of 2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate K. Prabhu

Respondent: Government Advocate (Crl. Side) A.Robinson, Advocate R.Karunanithi

Click here to read/download Order