The Madras High Court slammed police officers for refusing to register an FIR on an SC man’s land complaint by wrongly calling it a civil dispute. The court ruled that SC/ST Atrocities Act mandates compulsory FIR registration and ordered swift investigation.
The Madras High Court has clearly said that police officers cannot avoid registering an FIR in cases related to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by calling the matter a “civil dispute”.
The court upheld the order of a Special Court which had directed registration of an FIR against a Sub-Inspector and a Deputy Superintendent of Police for refusing to act on a complaint made by a Scheduled Caste man about illegal occupation of his family’s Panchami land.
Justice L. Victoria Gowri dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the two officers and confirmed the Special Court’s February 2022 direction to register a case under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act along with related IPC provisions for neglect of duty.
The judge made it clear that when a complaint by an SC citizen prima facie shows offences under Sections 3(1)(f), (g) or (p) of the Act, concerning illegal occupation or dispossession of SC land, the police have no authority to conduct a preliminary enquiry or refuse to register an FIR just because a civil case is pending.
The complainant belongs to the Hindu Paraiyan community and stated that his ancestral lands measuring 60 cents and 22 cents, which were originally assigned to his ancestor in 1927, were unlawfully occupied by non-SC persons.
In November 2021, he approached the Manapparai Police Station and a CSR was issued. However, instead of registering an FIR, the police called both parties for enquiry and later closed the complaint saying the issue was civil in nature.
The High Court strongly criticised this approach and referred to Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, which was introduced to stop police from filtering atrocity complaints through informal or preliminary enquiries.
The court said that once a complaint shows a cognizable offence under the Act, the police must immediately register an FIR.
It clarified that issues like whether the land is actually assignment land, whether the transfer is invalid, and what relief the complainant may get are matters to be decided during investigation and in civil proceedings, but these questions cannot be used to deny FIR registration at the initial stage.
Justice Gowri observed,
“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,”
and reaffirmed that police discretion does not exist at the stage of FIR registration when the complaint discloses an offence under the SC/ST Act.
The officers argued that prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC was required before any action could be taken against them.
This plea was rejected by the court, which held that sanction is only considered at the stage of taking cognizance by the court, and not at the stage of directing registration of an FIR.
The judge clarified that ordering an FIR does not amount to taking cognizance and that neglect of statutory duties under a special law like the SC/ST Act cannot be treated as an act done in discharge of official duty so as to attract protection at the FIR stage.
The court also dismissed the argument that Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act requires a departmental enquiry or recommendation before criminal proceedings can begin.
Justice Gowri stated that departmental action and criminal prosecution are independent of each other and the law does not impose any condition that a departmental enquiry must happen before registering an FIR.
It was further noted that the complainant had already fulfilled the requirement under Section 154(1) CrPC by approaching the police first, and only after being denied an FIR did he move the Special Court under Section 156(3).
The judge held that the Special Court had applied its mind properly and passed a reasoned order in line with the Supreme Court judgment in Priyanka Srivastava.
Upholding the Special Court’s decision, Justice Gowri directed that if the FIR had still not been registered, the jurisdictional police must immediately do so based on the complainant’s grievance.
She also ordered that the investigation be transferred to a competent officer other than the DSP who had earlier treated the issue as a civil dispute and closed the complaint.
The court further instructed that the investigation should preferably be completed within eight weeks.
At the same time, Justice Gowri clarified that she was not expressing any opinion on the actual civil dispute relating to land ownership, and that such issues would be decided separately by the appropriate civil court.
Case Title:
Suriya and Another vs Gandhi and Another
Read Judgement:
Click Here To Read More Reports on SC/ST Atrocities Act
