Case at a Glance
A Deputy Superintendent of Police and a Sub-Inspector in Tamil Nadu faced an FIR for dereliction of duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act after the Sub-Inspector’s preliminary inquiry, approved by the DSP, found an atrocity complaint to be false and linked to a civil dispute. The FIR was registered on the direction of the Special Court. Before the Supreme Court, the State conceded that no administrative inquiry under the proviso to Section 4 had been conducted. The Court declined to remand the matter and quashed the FIR and all further proceedings against the officers.
A complaint under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was made against two persons. The Sub-Inspector conducted a preliminary inquiry and found the case to be false, raised only to counter a civil dispute; the Deputy Superintendent of Police approved the inquiry, and no FIR was registered. The complainant then approached the Special Court under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the matter went for investigation.
The complainant also moved a petition alleging dereliction of duty by the two officers. On the Special Court’s direction, an FIR dated 18 December 2025 was registered against the DSP and the SI under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Sections 161A and 167 IPC. The officers challenged the FIR before the High Court and then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the investigation. Senior Counsel for the DSP relied on Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454, Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761, Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, and Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SC CK 0065, (2014) 2 SCC 1. The State’s Additional Advocate General, citing State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar alias Prashanth, accepted that the proviso to Section 4 is mandatory but sought a remand for an administrative inquiry.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can an FIR for dereliction of duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act be maintained against public servants when no administrative inquiry, as required by the proviso to Section 4, was conducted before it was registered?
The Proviso to Section 4 Was Not Followed
In answer to a specific query from the Bench, the Additional Advocate General stated on instructions that no administrative inquiry had been conducted. The Court recorded that “the Special Court itself had directed registration of an FIR without an administrative inquiry having been conducted.” It also noted that its interim order had only stayed the investigation, which “does not preclude the State from carrying out an administrative inquiry.”
The State asked for the matter to be remanded to the Special Court so that an administrative inquiry report could be obtained. The Court refused: “We are of the opinion that at this juncture, there is no requirement to remand the matter to the Special Court.” Since the administrative inquiry required by the proviso to Section 4 had not been carried out, the Court quashed the FIR and all further proceedings arising from it, holding that there was no reason for the proceedings to continue.
What the Court Actually Held
- An administrative inquiry under the proviso to Section 4 of the SC/ST Act had not been conducted before the FIR against the officers was registered.
- The Special Court’s direction to register an FIR without such inquiry could not be sustained.
- The State’s request for remand to obtain an administrative inquiry report was declined.
- The FIR dated 18 December 2025 and all further proceedings arising from it were quashed, and the appeals were allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows that the statutory safeguard in the proviso to Section 4 must be followed before public servants are prosecuted for dereliction of duty.
- It protects officers who record a reasoned finding in a preliminary inquiry from being prosecuted without the required administrative scrutiny.
- It reminds Special Courts to check compliance with the proviso before directing registration of an FIR under Section 4.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Police Officers and Public Servants
- An FIR under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for dereliction of duty may be challenged if no administrative inquiry preceded it.
- Keep a clear record of preliminary inquiries and their approval.
For Counsel
- Ask the State to state on instructions whether the administrative inquiry under the proviso to Section 4 was held.
- Oppose remand where the FIR itself was registered without the mandatory inquiry.
Key Takeaways
- A Section 4 SC/ST Act case against public servants for dereliction of duty requires the administrative inquiry under its proviso.
- The State accepted that the proviso is mandatory.
- An FIR registered without that inquiry was quashed.
- The Court declined to remand the matter for the inquiry to be held afterwards.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Section 4 of the SC/ST Act about?
It deals with dereliction of duty by public servants under the Act. As the State accepted in this case, its proviso requiring an administrative inquiry is mandatory.
Why was the FIR against the DSP and SI quashed?
Because the State conceded that no administrative inquiry under the proviso to Section 4 had been conducted before the FIR was registered on the Special Court’s direction.
Does this affect the original atrocity complaint?
The Supreme Court’s order dealt only with the FIR against the two officers for dereliction of duty; it does not discuss the separate investigation on the original complaint.
Conclusion
The order is brief but clear: before police officers are prosecuted under Section 4 for neglecting their duties under the SC/ST Act, the administrative inquiry contemplated by the proviso must be held. Without it, the FIR could not stand, and the Court did not allow the defect to be cured by a remand.
Practical takeaway: In any Section 4 SC/ST Act prosecution of a public servant, first verify whether the administrative inquiry under the proviso was conducted; its absence can be fatal to the FIR.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com