Cognizance Under SC/ST Act Must Be Supported by Reasons; Cryptic Order Unsustainable: Kerala High Court

The Court further noted that when an investigating officer files a final report recommending closure, the Special Court is duty-bound to either accept or reject the report, or direct further investigation, before proceeding on a protest complaint, and failure to follow this procedure vitiates the order of cognizance.

A Single-Judge Bench comprising Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “…It is well settled law that when a final report with request to drop the proceedings would be filed by the Investigating Officer after investigation, despite issuance of notice to the complainant or the aggrieved person concerned, the court has a duty to verify the report with a view to either accept or reject the same, or to order further investigation, as the case may be. In the instant case, no such procedure is seen to have been adopted, as the same could not be discernible from Annexure 16 order. That apart, Annexure A16 order is also a blanket and cryptic order without reasons. When serious offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, viz., 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s), are alleged, the Special Court should pass a reasonable order justifying the cognizance and a cryptic order simply taking cognizance would not suffice the said purpose. That apart, the stand taken by the Special Judge on the refer report is also could not be discernible from the order. Thus, this Court is of the view that Annexure A16 order suffers from illegality”.

The Bench delivered the judgment while allowing a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST (PoA) Act challenging an order of the Special Court, Nedumangad, which had taken cognizance against the appellant for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.

Advocate Arun Chand appeared for the appellant and Advocate K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan appeared for the respondent.

For background, the matter originated from a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant on 17-03-2022, which was forwarded for police investigation. After inquiry, the investigating officer filed a refer report seeking to drop proceedings.

Upon notice, the complainant filed a protest complaint, and acting on the protest petition, the Special Court passed an order stating that a prima facie case was made out and directed the matter to be registered as a sessions case.

Now, the appellant contended that the order was passed without discussing the refer report or recording reasons justifying cognizance. The de facto complainant argued that statements of five witnesses had been recorded and that prima facie satisfaction could be discerned from the order.

The High Court upon examining the impugned order, found that it did not disclose what materials were considered to arrive at the conclusion that a prima facie case existed.

The Court noted that it was not discernible whether the refer report was accepted or rejected, nor was there any reasoning supporting the decision to proceed against the accused. In cases involving serious allegations under the SC/ST Act, the Court observed, the Special Court must pass a speaking order demonstrating judicial application of mind.

The Court also reiterated that, in light of prior precedent, Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act stands declared unconstitutional, and further observed that pending proceedings instituted prior to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 must continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Cause Title: Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:10639]

Appearances:

Appellant: Arun Chand, Pramod S.K., Vinayak G Menon, Thareeq Anver, Bharat Vijay P., Minu Vittorria Paulson, Archana P.P., Shehroon Patel A.K., Advocates.

Respondents: K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, N.P. Asha, Public Prosecutor, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment