Meerut: The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against 13 police personnel accused under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that every instance of insult, intimidation or humiliation of a person belonging to an SC or ST community does not automatically constitute an offence under the Act.
Justice Santosh Rai, hearing Criminal Appeal No. 7399 of 2026, held that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult or intimidation must be shown to have occurred because of the victim’s caste identity. The court also found procedural shortcomings concerning the absence of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants and the manner in which the Special Court had proceeded with the complaint.
Dispute arose at Meerut police station
The case originated from an incident on June 18, 2017, at Kharkhoda Police Station in Meerut district. The complainant, Saroj, alleged that she had gone to the police station after demanding repayment of a ₹20,000 loan from a person named Sonu.
According to her allegations, Sonu colluded with the Station House Officer, Sandeep Kumar, and other police personnel. She alleged that she was subjected to caste-based abuse, physical assault, custodial torture and humiliation, and that cash and valuables were also missing following the incident.
Following an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), an FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 530 of 2017 against 15 named accused, including 13 police officials, along with one unknown person. The charges included provisions of the IPC as well as Sections 3(2)(i), 7 and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.
However, the investigation concluded that the allegations were not substantiated by eyewitnesses. The Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report, also stating that the case appeared to be a counterblast to another criminal case registered against Saroj on the same day.
Cross-case became central to proceedings
Earlier on June 18, 2017, Lady Constable Bhuvanesh Kumari had lodged Crime No. 299 of 2017 against Saroj, alleging assault on police personnel and obstruction of public duties. Saroj was subsequently arrested and sent to jail.
After the police filed the Final Report in her case, Saroj submitted a protest petition supported by affidavits from seven individuals, newspaper clippings and photographs.
On October 6, 2018, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut rejected the Final Report and treated the protest petition as a complaint. The court subsequently summoned the accused and recorded pre-charge evidence under Section 244 CrPC before rejecting their discharge application under Section 245 CrPC.
The police personnel challenged the order and subsequent proceedings before the High Court.
HC finds caste-based allegations insufficient
The High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, while examining the ingredients of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act.
The court reiterated that simply insulting or intimidating an SC/ST individual is insufficient unless the conduct is connected to the person’s caste identity.
It noted that the complaint did not specifically identify which police official knew about Saroj’s caste, how that knowledge was obtained, or what particular caste-based words were allegedly used by each accused.
The court stressed that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained against a group of people merely because they were present at the place of occurrence without specific allegations establishing the statutory ingredients against individual accused.
The court also considered the timing of the cross-case, the injuries allegedly suffered by police personnel, Saroj’s immediate arrest and the delay of around four months before registration of Crime No. 530 of 2017. It held that these circumstances supported the conclusion that the prosecution was a retaliatory counterblast, attracting principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Newspaper reports and affidavits could not replace evidence
The High Court also criticised the Special Court’s reliance on affidavits, photographs and newspaper clippings while rejecting the police Final Report.
It observed that newspaper reports are not substantive evidence of the facts reported in them. Similarly, affidavits accompanying a protest petition do not automatically become substantive evidence.
The court noted discrepancies in the affidavits, including variations concerning the timing of the alleged incident and the presence of witnesses. It held that a judicial order rejecting an investigation report must contain reasons demonstrating proper application of mind.
Prior sanction for prosecuting police personnel
Another significant issue was the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
The High Court held that where alleged acts have a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties, previous sanction is a condition precedent before a court can take cognizance against the public servants concerned.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments including Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari and Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, the court held that the Special Court should have examined the requirement of sanction before proceeding against the police personnel.
Special Court followed incorrect procedure
The High Court further held that the Special Court had adopted the procedure applicable to Magistrates by recording evidence under Section 244 CrPC and considering discharge under Section 245 CrPC.
Since a Special Court under the SC/ST Act functions as a Court of Session, the High Court said it was required to follow the Sessions trial procedure under Chapter XVIII of the CrPC. The accused therefore should have been considered for discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
13 guidelines issued for courts across Uttar Pradesh
The judgment also laid down 13 guidelines intended to ensure uniform handling of Final Reports and protest petitions by criminal courts across Uttar Pradesh.
Among other directions, courts were asked to independently assess police reports, provide reasons when rejecting Final Reports, avoid mechanically treating affidavits and press clippings as substantive evidence, examine specific roles attributed to individual accused, and consider the applicability of statutory protection for public servants.
The High Court further directed that judicial orders taking cognizance or rejecting Final Reports must be reasoned and that complaint procedures must be followed where a protest petition is treated as a complaint.
Proceedings against 13 police personnel quashed
Concluding that continuation of the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the judicial process, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the October 6, 2018 order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut.
All subsequent proceedings arising from that order were quashed and the 13 police personnel were discharged.
The court directed the Registrar General to transmit the judgment to the Meerut court within 48 hours and circulate it among judicial officers across Uttar Pradesh. A copy was also directed to be sent to the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, for institutional compliance.
