Allahabad HC quashes FIR against police officers, questions special court’s order
The Allahabad High Court has quashed a “casual” order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) of Maharajganj, which directed the registration of an FIR against a sub-inspector, a constable, and 20 police officers in a “casual” manner, violating statutory provisions under Section 173(4) of the BNSS dealing with information in cognisable cases.
Quashing the lower court order, Justice Santosh Rai said, “The manner in which the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Maharajganj, has dealt with the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS is a matter of serious concern. The impugned order reflects a serious lack of appreciation and application of the statutory procedure under the BNSS and the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court.”
“The impugned order reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic principles of criminal law and procedure on the part of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Maharajganj,” Justice Rai added. As per the facts of the case, an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS was filed in the court of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, by Sheela (29), the wife of Pramod, and Anju (26), the wife of Rajesh, both residents of Basantpur village in Maharajganj district.
They said that both belonged to the Chamar caste, which falls under the Scheduled Caste category.
According to the application, a dispute over land and money existed between the applicants’ families and the family of Ramasare.
On the night of June 6, a clash occurred, injuring Rajesh and a man named Pintoo. Later that night, police took away Pintoo, Molai, Suresh and Rahul.
Later that night, sub-inspector Rakesh Kumar Yadav, constable Amit Kumar and about 20 policemen (with no female police officers) forced their entry into the house of the opposite party without a search warrant and outraged their modesty by making caste-based remarks.
Based on the application, the SC/ST court passed an order against the police personnel without examining their comments or the other material on record.
It was contended that the allegations of physical search, indecent behaviour and intimidation were vague, omnibus, uncorroborated and motivated, while the alleged occurrence took place inside a private residential premises and therefore, the essential requirement of “public view” under the SC/ST Act was not prima facie satisfied.
The appellants also contend that the learned court failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of the BNSS.
After going through the record as well as the arguments raised on behalf of the applicant police personnel, the court in its judgment dated October 9 said, “In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Maharajganj, while passing the impugned order, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of the BNSS.
The learned court neither undertook the requisite consideration as to whether an inquiry under Section 175(3) was necessary nor recorded “cogent reasons” for dispensing with such an inquiry.
