The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a Sessions Court direction that ordered registration of an FIR against two police officers under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that the mandatory requirement of an administrative inquiry was not followed before directing criminal action against the public servants.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that an individual had abused her using caste-related remarks and assaulted her during an incident in January 2023. After alleging that the police failed to register her complaint, she moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking directions for registration of a case.
The Sessions Court later directed registration of an FIR against the main accused under provisions of the SC/ST Act and the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, it also ordered registration of an FIR against two police officials - a Circle Officer and a Station House Officer - under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for alleged neglect of duty.
Challenging that order, the officers approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking its quashing.
During the hearing, counsel for the applicants argued that the Sessions Court had acted without complying with the proviso to Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act, which requires a recommendation arising from an administrative inquiry before proceedings can be initiated against a public servant.
Justice Alok Mahra examined the statutory provision as well as the Supreme Court's ruling in State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant. The High Court noted that the apex court had already clarified that an administrative inquiry is a necessary safeguard before criminal proceedings are launched against public servants for alleged dereliction of duty under Section 4 of the Act.
Referring to the legal position, the Court observed that the Sessions Judge had "straightaway" directed registration of an FIR against the officers without first obtaining the required administrative inquiry report.
"The learned Session Judge erred by straightaway directing for lodging of FIR under Section 4 of SCST Act against the applicants, who are public servants in violation of proviso to Section 4(2) of the SCST Act," the bench observed.
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the High Court exercised its inherent powers and allowed the criminal miscellaneous application.
The Court set aside the June 10, 2024 order of the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, to the extent that it directed registration of an FIR against the two applicants under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.
Case Details
Case Title: Bhupendra Singh and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Application No. 1080 of 2024
Judge: Justice Alok Mahra
Decision Date: May 21, 2026
