Court Emphasizes Necessity of Administrative Enquiry Recommendation Before Criminal Proceedings Against Public Servants Under Section 4 of SC/ST Act
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Guddo, a Scheduled Caste widow, challenging the rejection of her application under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant had accused police officers of wilful neglect of duty in investigating the alleged kidnapping, rape, and pregnancy of her minor daughter, also from a Scheduled Caste community.
The appellant contended that despite her repeated complaints, the police failed to register an FIR under the SC/ST Act, did not add relevant provisions to the FIR, deliberately shielded the real accused, and inadequately responded to her numerous representations and complaints to higher authorities, including the National Commission for Scheduled Castes.
However, the court meticulously examined the records and found that an FIR (Case Crime No. 24/2020) under Section 366 IPC was registered on February 7, 2020, based on the appellant's own written complaint, shortly after her daughter's disappearance. The investigation included recording statements of the victim and witnesses under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., spot inspection, and filing a charge-sheet against one accused, with trial pending before the Special Judge under the POCSO Act.
The court reiterated that Section 4 of the SC/ST Act penalizes wilful neglect of specific statutory duties by public servants who are not SC/ST members. These duties include registering FIRs under appropriate sections, recording statements, conducting investigations diligently, and filing charge-sheets within stipulated timelines. Crucially, the court emphasized the Supreme Court's ruling in State of GNCT of Delhi v. Praveen Kumar @ Prashant (2024), which mandates that before criminal proceedings under Section 4 can be initiated against public servants, there must be a recommendation based on an administrative enquiry. This recommendation is a sine qua non and a statutory safeguard to prevent frivolous or malicious prosecution of public servants.
The court observed that mere dissatisfaction with the quality or outcome of the investigation, non-inclusion of SC/ST Act provisions in the FIR, or administrative delays in responding to complaints do not constitute wilful neglect of duty. Such matters are remediable through appropriate legal and administrative channels, including trial courts and departmental proceedings. The appellant's allegations of casteist bias and collusion lacked specific factual foundation and were insufficient to attract penal consequences under Section 4.
Furthermore, the court clarified that where an FIR has already been registered on a cognizable offence, no second FIR can be registered regarding the same incident. Additional information or grievances must be addressed within the ongoing investigation and trial processes.
After a comprehensive analysis, the court held that the appellant failed to disclose a prima facie case under Section 4, as there was no specific statutory duty wilfully neglected, no administrative enquiry recommendation, and no material to infer conscious disregard by the public servants involved. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Special Judge rejecting the application was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards under the SC/ST Act and delineates the narrow scope of Section 4 proceedings to prevent misuse against public servants performing their duties. It also provides clarity on addressing grievances related to investigations through proper judicial and administrative remedies rather than invoking penal provisions without requisite foundation.
Bottom Line:
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 4 - Mere dissatisfaction with investigation, non-addition of provisions of SC/ST Act, non-arrest of named persons, or alleged administrative inaction by police officers does not by itself constitute wilful neglect of duty by public servants - For initiating proceedings under Section 4, there must be a specific statutory duty under the Act/Rules, a definite omission attributable to the concerned public servant, wilful or deliberate neglect, and recommendation of administrative enquiry as condition precedent - In absence thereof, application under Section 4 was rightly rejected.
Statutory provision(s):
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 4, Sections 4(1), 4(2), 4(3); Indian Penal Code Section 366; Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 161, 164; Police Act Section 122(3); Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 218 (referenced)
