Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a Sessions Court order that directed the registration of a FIR against two police officers under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that an administrative inquiry is a mandatory prerequisite before initiating such proceedings against public servants.
In a significant ruling delivered on May 21, 2026, Justice Alok Mahra of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital quashed the portion of an order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, which had directed the registration of an FIR against a Circle Officer and a Station House Officer (SHO) under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act for alleged dereliction of duty.
The court observed that the Sessions Judge had acted contrary to the statutory safeguards contained in the Act by ordering criminal proceedings without first obtaining a recommendation from an administrative inquiry.
The matter originated from an incident alleged to have taken place on January 4, 2023. According to the complainant, Pramila Devi, she was subjected to caste-based abuse and assault by one Girish Chandra Tiwari. She further alleged that despite approaching the police, no action was taken and her complaint was not registered.
Subsequently, she moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking directions for registration of a case. This application was registered as Complaint Case No. 46 of 2023. However, the complaint was dismissed in default on March 18, 2024.
Later, on May 22, 2024, the complainant filed a fresh application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. based on the same allegations. Acting on this application, the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, passed an order on June 10, 2024, directing the police to register an FIR against Girish Chandra Tiwari under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 452, 323, 354, 504 and 506.
In addition, the Sessions Judge directed registration of an FIR against the then Circle Officer and SHO of Mukhani police station under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, alleging failure to perform their statutory duties in relation to the complaint.
The police officers challenged the order before the Uttarakhand High Court through a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which empowers High Courts to exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of legal processes and secure the ends of justice.
Represented by advocates Lalit Sharma and K.K. Tiwari, the applicants argued that the Sessions Judge had ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the SC/ST Act. They contended that before any criminal action could be initiated against public servants for alleged neglect of duty, an administrative inquiry was required and its recommendation was a statutory condition precedent.
The petitioners maintained that no such inquiry had been conducted in the present case, making the direction for FIR registration legally unsustainable.
Section 4 of the SC/ST Act deals with punishment for public servants who wilfully neglect duties assigned under the legislation. These duties include registering complaints and FIRs, recording statements of victims and witnesses, and ensuring timely filing of charge sheets before the designated courts.
A crucial safeguard is contained in the proviso to Section 4(2), which states that charges against a public servant can be booked only on the recommendation of an administrative inquiry.
The High Court noted that this requirement is not merely procedural but mandatory in nature.
Justice Mahra relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of GNCT of Delhi and Others v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant (2021). In that decision, the apex court clarified the scope of Section 4 and held that an administrative inquiry must precede any criminal proceedings against a public servant for alleged dereliction of duty under the SC/ST Act.
The Supreme Court had observed that such an inquiry serves an important purpose by examining whether the officer’s conduct amounted to wilful neglect and whether circumstances existed that justified the actions taken.
The apex court also held that delaying the inquiry requirement until later stages of criminal proceedings would undermine the protection intended by the legislature, particularly because Section 4 carries serious penal consequences, including imprisonment.
Referring to these principles, the Uttarakhand High Court concluded that the Sessions Judge had failed to comply with the mandatory statutory framework and the binding precedent laid down by the Supreme Court.
Apart from the issue of administrative inquiry, the High Court also took note of the complainant’s conduct in the proceedings.
The court observed that the earlier complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had already been dismissed in default. Despite this, the fresh application filed on identical facts did not disclose the existence or dismissal of the earlier proceedings.
According to the court, this omission indicated that the complainant had not approached the court with complete candour and clean hands.
Justice Mahra remarked that permitting criminal proceedings against the police officers in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Allowing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1080 of 2024, the High Court set aside the June 10, 2024, order of the District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, insofar as it directed registration of an FIR against the Circle Officer and SHO under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.
However, the court clarified that its decision was limited to the police officers and did not affect the direction to register an FIR against the principal accused, Girish Chandra Tiwari, in connection with the allegations made by the complainant.
