Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has held that a complainant’s dissatisfaction with a police investigation or the failure of investigating officers to invoke specific provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, does not, by itself, constitute wilful neglect of duty warranting prosecution of public servants under Section 4 of the Act.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by Guddo, a Scheduled Caste woman, challenging a Ghaziabad Special Court’s decision refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against seven public servants for alleged wilful neglect of duty.
The High Court observed that prosecution under Section 4 requires the identification of a specific statutory duty that a public servant failed to perform, along with material demonstrating that the omission was deliberate or wilful.
It further noted that the provision’s proviso requires an administrative inquiry and recommendation before proceedings against a public servant can be initiated.
According to the appellant, her minor daughter, who was employed as a domestic help at a couple’s residence in 2020, went missing and was subsequently recovered. She alleged that a medical examination confirmed rape and pregnancy.
Guddo claimed that despite submitting a written complaint and her caste certificate to the Station House Officer of Kaushambi police station on March 15, 2020, the police failed to take appropriate action. She also alleged that the investigating officer conducted a biased investigation, failed to invoke relevant provisions of the SC/ST Act and did not proceed against the actual perpetrators.
The appellant further questioned the conduct of supervising officers and senior police officials over their handling of her complaints.
However, the High Court noted that an FIR had been registered on February 7, 2020, on the basis of the appellant’s written report under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.
It also observed that the investigating officer had recorded statements of the informant, the victim and other witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inspected the spot and filed a charge sheet against an accused. The trial under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was ongoing.
Addressing the failure to invoke specific provisions of the SC/ST Act, the court said that such an omission was primarily a matter concerning investigation and trial and did not automatically amount to wilful neglect of a duty under Section 4(2).
The bench held that allegations concerning defective investigation, non-arrest of other persons and the handling of representations did not establish the ingredients of the offence without specific supporting material.
Finding that no prima facie case of wilful neglect had been established and that the required administrative recommendation was not demonstrated, the court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the Special Court’s order and dismissed the appeal.
