Brief Facts
- The present case arises out of a series of cross-complaints between the trainees and the administrator of the Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA), located in Eastern Jaunapur by the trainees against the administrator and the counter-complaints were filed by the administrator against the trainees.
- The present case pertains to a complaint dated 29.04.2018 filed by Respondent No. 2, a trainee at OREA, alleging commission of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the other trainees (Appellants). Pursuant to the said complaint, Respondent No. 2 filed an application dated 09.05.2018 under Section 156(3) read with Section 200 CrPC, seeking directions for registration of an FIR. The Ld. Magistrate directed the concerned SHO to file ATR Report scheduling the next day of hearing. Aggrieved by the delay, the Respondent No. 2 filed a misc. application under sec. 4(2) and 4(3) of the ST/SC Act before the Ld. Special Judge against the alleged commission and omission by public servants in discharge of their duties. However, the Ld. Special Judge dismissed the Application filed by the Respondent No. 2 under sec. 4 of the Act.
- Thereafter, the application under sec. 156(3) read with sec. 200 CrPC was transferred to the court of Ld. Magistrate, Shri Gaurav Gupta, where the Ld. ACP furnished the enquiry report on the complaint dated 09.05.2018 and consequently the Ld. Magistrate dismissed the application dated 09.05.2018.
Facts pertaining to Appeal No. 348/2021
- Aggrieved, by the dismissal of application dated 09.05.2018 filed under sec. 156(3) read with sec. 200 CrPC, the Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the High Court, which set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed the SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri, to register an FIR. The High Court further directed that no coercive steps be taken against the accused.
- Challenging the said directions, the accused preferred the present Criminal Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Facts pertaining to Appeal No. 349/2021
- Aggrieved by the dismissal of application under section 4 of the SC/ST Act, the Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the High Court, whereby the High Court set aside the order of the Ld. Magistrate and directed to initiate proceedings against the SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri.
- Aggrieved by the same, the concerned officer preferred the present Criminal Appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
Issues pertaining to Appeal No. 348/2021
- Whether the order of the Ld. Magistrate conforms to the material on record and satisfies the mandate under sec. 156(3) CrPC?
- Whether the Complaint dated 09.05.2018 makes out a prima facie case of an offence under sec. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989?
- Whether the impugned order is valid, legal and tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case?
Issues pertaining to Appeal No. 349/2021
- Whether initiating proceedings against the then SHO, P.S. Fatehpur Beri by the impugned judgment conforms to the requirements of section 4 of the Act of 1989?
- Whether on merits and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned direction to initiate proceedings against the then SHO is justified and tenable?
Held
- Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the orders passed by the High Court while upholding the orders passed by the Magistrate Court and the Special Court. The findings of the Court are summarised as under:
Analysis of the Court in Appeal No. 348/2021
Power of Magistrate to conduct preliminary inquiry before directing registration of FIR
- While relying on the Judgments in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287 and Khalid Khan and Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2023) SCC OnLine All 2277, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that:
- It is crystal clear when the application under section 156(3) of CrPC discloses a cognizable offence, then it is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to direct registration of the FIR, which is investigated by the investigation agency, in accordance with the law. Conversely, when the information received does not prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for inquiry, in that case, the preliminary inquiry may be conducted in order to ascertain whether the offence complained is cognizable or not. The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information received reveals a cognizable offence or not.
Absence of Prima Facie Case Disclosing a Cognizable Offence
- The Hon’ble Apex Court, while examining the expression “in any place within the public view,” referred to and discussed the decisions in Swarn Singh & Ors. v. State and Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 435; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608; and Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. v. State, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 33. The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, on a prima facie view, appear to be omnibus and vague insofar as the Appellants are concerned, as there are no specific averments regarding the place of occurrence or the presence of any person before whom the alleged incident took place in public view. Moreover, the alterations made in the application filed before the Ld. Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC particularly the marked incorporation of the term “public place” further indicate an attempt to overcome the statutory requirement.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court held that in view of the aforesaid discussion and on the perusal of the ATS Report , the Metropolitan Magistrate at the relevant point of time was justified in ordering a preliminary inquiry on the application dated 09.05.2018 and receiving the Action Taken Report from the jurisdictional police station. Further, the accusations in the complaints do not satisfy as having been made in any place within public view. Therefore, in a case such as the present, directing registration of FIR and further steps is unsustainable.
Analysis of the Court in Appeal No. 349/2021
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1989, set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, observing that proviso to sub section (2) plays an important role in scheme of proceedings under section 4 of the act, as a condition precedent. Therefore, the commission or omission of any of the duties by the public servant becomes a cognizable offence against the public servant only on the recommendation of the administrative enquiry, for in law, an offence means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force.
- The absence of recommendation would bar taking cognizance by the Court. In a given case, if a complaint without recommendation is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate before proceeding further to keep his decision conforming to section 4(2) read with the proviso, calls for a report/recommendation from the Department against the named public servant. The Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court based on an administrative enquiry report can take cognizance of the alleged offence and thereon direct penal proceedings. By keeping in perspective, the language/scheme of section 4, and on the literal interpretation of sub-
sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 4, it would be legally permissible that the jurisdiction for infraction of sub-section (2) of section 4 is attracted only on the recommendation of the administrative enquiry and then, the cognizance under sub-section (3) of section 4 is ordered.
Relevant Para No.
- 14, 14.2, 15, 21, 21.1, 21.2, 22, 23, 26, 42.4, 43.3, 43.4 and 45