Ensure Strict Compliance With SC/ST Act & Rules, Time-Bound Filing Of Final Report In All Cases: Madras High Court To Police Superintendents

The High Court was considering a Criminal Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Official Respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings as against the accused persons under Section 4(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

The Single Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan took note of the procedural lapses under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ordered, “The second respondent shall communicate a copy of this order through appropriate channels to all Superintendents of Police in the State, who shall, in turn, ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the Rules, particularly Rule 7 relating to the rank of the Investigating Officer and the time-bound filing of the final report in all cases registered under the said Act.”

Advocate R.Thirumoorthy represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate C.E.Pratap represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, is a physically challenged person. In the year 1997, under the Tamil Nadu Government Land Ceiling Scheme, his mother was granted 2.9 acres of land, and since then, he has been in possession of the said property. While so, one Lakshmiyamma, Venkatasami Reddy, Lakshmi Narayanan, Vijayakumar and Kannan and their associates, in order to usurp his land, obtained false and fabricated revenue documents in the name of their family members. Hence, the petitioner filed a civil suit against the said persons and their associates.

It was alleged that the said accused, along with several known and unknown individuals, trespassed into his land, demolishing his house worth Rs 10 lakh. The petitioner went to the police station, where he was allegedly threatened and told that action would be taken only if the petitioner signed a new complaint drafted by him. Out of fear, the petitioner signed the said complaint drafted by the Police Official. The petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate by way of filing a petition invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., seeking direction to register the complaint, wherein the Magistrate passed an order directing the Police to register FIR. However, this order was not complied with, and no action was taken against the accused persons. Thus, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that as per Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the said Act is vested in the Special Court, which is a Court of Session presided over by a Sessions Judge. “Therefore, a Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. insofar as it relates to offences under the SC/ST Act, either for issuing directions for investigation or for taking cognizance”, the Bench held.

Reference was also made to Section 18A(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act which bars any form of preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the Act. Considering the fact that the direction issued by the Magistrate for conducting a preliminary enquiry is contrary to the express bar under Section 18A(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act and also Section 14 of the said Act, the Bench held that the subsequent action of the police, based on such direction, stood vitiated and was unsustainable in law.

The Bench also made a reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. State of Maharashtra,(2020) wherein it has been held that when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, no preliminary enquiry is permissible either under the Act or under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

“Moreover, the enquiry in the present case was conducted by an Inspector of Police. Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, mandates that investigation into offences under the SC/ST Act shall be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that compliance with Rule 7 is mandatory, and any investigation conducted by an officer below the prescribed rank is without authority of law and is liable to be treated as null and void”, the order read.

The Bench highlighted the legal infirmities of this case, which included the fact that the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction under the SC/ST Act to entertain the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the direction for conducting a preliminary enquiry was in direct contravention of Section 18A(1)(a) of the Act. Moreover, the enquiry report was submitted by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, in violation of Rule 7 of the SC/ST Rules. The Magistrate also failed to adhere to the procedure contemplated under Rule 7(1), which mandates that such complaints must be forwarded to the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act. Instead, the complaint was wrongly entertained and disposed of by a Court not vested with jurisdiction under the Act.

The Bench was thus of the view that the Magistrate and the respondent police were in patent disregard of the statutory scheme under the SC/ST Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Thus, setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, the Bench directed the Superintendent of Police to treat the petition filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate as a complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and register the same as a First Information Report.

Cause Title: Muniraj v. The State (Case No.: W.P.(Crl.) No.133 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate R.Thirumoorthy

Respondents: Government Advocate C.E.Pratap

Click here to read/download Order