Reiterating the foundational requirements for prosecuting offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Santosh Rai, has ruled that an offence under the Act is not made out merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Court emphasized that an intentional insult, intimidation, or humiliation must be committed specifically on account of the victim’s caste identity. Quashing criminal proceedings and discharging 13 police officials facing prosecution arising out of a police station altercation, the High Court held that omnibus allegations without specific caste-based motives, coupled with the absence of prior government sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), render the prosecution legally unsustainable and an abuse of the judicial process.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an incident on June 18, 2017, inside Police Station Kharkhoda, District Meerut. Smt. Saroj alleged that after demanding the repayment of a Rs. 20,000 loan from one Sonu, the latter colluded with Station House Officer Sandeep Kumar Singh and other police personnel. She alleged that she was summoned to the police station where she was subjected to caste-based slurs, physical assault, custodial torture, and humiliation, with cash and valuables going missing. She subsequently obtained an order under Section 156(3) CrPC, leading to the registration of Case Crime No. 530 of 2017 against 15 named accused (including 13 police officials) and one unknown person under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(i), 7, and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
Following investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report concluding that the allegations were unsubstantiated by eyewitnesses and represented a counterblast to an earlier case, Case Crime No. 299 of 2017. That earlier FIR had been registered on the very same day (June 18, 2017) against Saroj on the complaint of Lady Constable Bhuvanesh Kumari for assaulting police personnel and obstructing public duties, following which Saroj was arrested and sent to jail.
Aggrieved by the closure report, Saroj filed a protest petition supported by affidavits of seven individuals along with newspaper clippings and photographs. On October 6, 2018, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut, rejected the Final Report and registered the protest petition as a complaint. The Special Court summoned the accused, recorded pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC, and rejected the appellants’ discharge application under Section 245 CrPC. The police officials challenged the order dated October 6, 2018, and all consequential proceedings before the Allahabad High Court under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the appellant police personnel, Senior Counsel argued that the Special Court passed a completely non-speaking order without examining the case diary or the investigation’s conclusions. It was contended that the Final Report was discarded solely on extraneous affidavits and newspaper clippings, which do not form part of the police diary under Section 172 CrPC. Counsel stressed that all 13 appellants were police personnel discharging official duties at the police station, making prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC a mandatory condition precedent. Furthermore, the allegations were general and omnibus, lacking any specific casteist slur attributed to any individual officer, and the prosecution was a retaliatory counterblast to Saroj’s prior arrest in Crime No. 299 of 2017.
Opposing the appeal, counsel for the complainant and the Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection that an order rejecting a closure report and treating a protest petition as a complaint is interlocutory, barring an appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act. On merits, they contended that a Special Judge is fully empowered under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC to disagree with a final report and proceed on a protest petition. They submitted that the affidavits disclosed a prima facie case, while issues regarding Section 197 CrPC sanction, discrepancies in witness statements, and the cross-FIR were matters to be evaluated during trial.
The Court’s Analysis
Justice Santosh Rai addressed each legal and procedural issue in detail, dismissing the preliminary objection on maintainability and holding that the prosecution lacked foundational legal requirements.
1. Maintainability: Order is an Intermediate Order
The High Court held that the statutory bar against appeals under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act applies strictly to purely interlocutory orders, not intermediate orders. Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat, and Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, alongside Full Bench rulings of the Allahabad High Court in Gulam Rasool Khan v. State of U.P. and In Re: Provision of Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act, the Court held that an order taking cognizance and converting a protest petition into a complaint is an intermediate order because, if reversed, it terminates the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was held to be maintainable.
2. Essential Ingredients of Caste-Based Offences Not Disclosed
Examining the allegations under the SC/ST Act, the Court observed that the claims were omnibus and lacked the foundational ingredients of caste-motivated hostility. Applying the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated:
“…every insult or intimidation of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act; the insult or intimidation must be on account of the victim belonging to such caste or tribe.”
The Court found that the complainant did not allege which officer possessed knowledge of her caste identity, how such knowledge was acquired, or what specific casteist utterance was made by each appellant. The Court observed:
“…The criminal law cannot proceed against a group of persons merely on the basis of their presence at the place of occurrence without specific attribution of the statutory ingredients of the offence.”
The contemporaneous registration of Crime No. 299 of 2017, the injuries sustained by police personnel, Saroj’s immediate arrest, and the unexplained four-month delay in filing Crime No. 530 of 2017 showed that the case was a retaliatory counterblast, squarely attracting the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
3. Rejection of Final Report on Affidavits and Press Clippings
The Court held that the Special Judge erred in discarding the police Final Report on the basis of unverified affidavits, photographs, and press clippings. Referring to Rama Kant v. State of U.P., Dinesh Kumar Soni v. State of U.P., Vimlesh v. State of U.P., and Mukhtar Zaidi v. State of U.P., the Court observed:
“…a newspaper report is not substantive evidence of the facts stated therein. The learned Special Court, therefore, could not have relied upon such material, without anything more, for displacing the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer.”
The Court emphasized:
“…affidavits accompanying a protest petition do not automatically become substantive evidence; their nature and relevance must be examined, and if the Court proceeds on them by treating the protest petition as a complaint, it is also required to be verified whether the facts of the complaint constitute such offence in light of Section 190 Cr.P.C., thereafter, the statutory complaint procedure must be followed.”
The Court noted glaring contradictions in the affidavits regarding the time of occurrence (shifting between 1:30 p.m. and 2:30 p.m.) and the presence of witnesses. Citing Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd., the Court held that judicial orders must be supported by reasons, and merely noting that the record was perused does not fulfill the requirement of judicial application of mind.
4. Absolute Protection Under Section 197 CrPC
The High Court found that the trial court completely ignored the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. Reviewing the Constitution Bench judgment in Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, alongside Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar, State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain, and Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, the Court emphasized that where acts bear a reasonable connection to the discharge of official duties, sanction is a condition precedent.
The Court held:
“…Where Section 197 Cr.P.C. applies, previous sanction is a condition precedent to the Court taking cognizance of the offence. Therefore, before converting the protest petition into a complaint and proceeding against the appellants, the learned Special Court was required to satisfy itself whether the statutory requirement of previous sanction had been complied with.”
Applying Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, the Court ruled that depriving public servants of the statutory protection of Section 197 at the threshold constitutes a failure of justice that cannot be treated as a curable irregularity under Section 465 CrPC.
5. Adoption of Magistrate Procedure by Sessions Court
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., the High Court pointed out that a Special Court under the SC/ST Act functions as a Court of Session and must follow the trial procedure prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the CrPC. The Special Judge committed a grave procedural illegality by importing Magistrate warrant procedures—recording evidence under Section 244 CrPC and evaluating discharge under Section 245 CrPC—thereby depriving the appellants of their right to seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
Statewide Guidelines Issued
To ensure uniform procedure across Uttar Pradesh, the High Court formulated thirteen mandatory guidelines for criminal courts:
- Courts must independently examine the police report and investigative materials before accepting or rejecting a Final Report.
- A protest petition with affidavits must not automatically be converted into a complaint; the court must consciously determine its course.
- If a Final Report is rejected and the matter proceeds as a State case, specific and brief reasons must be recorded showing disagreement with the investigator.
- If treating a protest petition as a complaint, specific reasons must be recorded, and the court must examine whether allegations prima facie disclose an offence under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC / Section 210(1)(a) BNSS.
- Affidavits, newspaper cuttings, and photographs accompanying a protest petition cannot be mechanically treated as substantive evidence to reject a Final Report.
- Special Courts exercising powers of a Court of Session must strictly adhere to Sessions trial procedure under Chapter XVIII CrPC / BNSS, and not import Magistrate procedures.
- Where accused persons are public servants acting in the discharge of official duty, the court must consider the applicability of Section 197 CrPC / Section 218 BNSS at the appropriate threshold.
- Every order taking cognizance or rejecting a Final Report must be a speaking and reasoned judicial order.
- In complaint cases, the Presiding Officer must examine the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC / Sections 223 and 225 BNSS.
- Where multiple accused are arrayed, the court must evaluate the prima facie material and specific role attributed to each individual rather than acting on omnibus allegations.
- Final Reports must be submitted through the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police pursuant to Rule 122 of the U.P. Police Regulations, and the complainant must be duly informed.
- Criminal courts must dispose of Final Reports expeditiously, ordinarily within one month of submission, pursuant to High Court circulars.
- District and Sessions Judges across Uttar Pradesh must monitor compliance during monthly meetings with judicial officers and administrative monitoring cell meetings.
Court’s Decision
Holding that the continuation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of the judicial process, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated October 6, 2018, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut. The Court quashed all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and discharged all 13 appellant police personnel.
The High Court directed its Registrar General to transmit the judgment within 48 hours to the Meerut court, circulate copies to all judicial officers across Uttar Pradesh for strict adherence, and forward a copy to the Director of the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, for institutional guidance.
Case Title: Bhuvnesh Kumari and 12 others Versus State of U.P. and another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 7399 of 2026
Bench: Justice Santosh Rai
Date: September 15, 2026
