Court holds accused lacks locus standi at pre-cognizance stage; investigation must proceed without interference, but grants liberty to challenge via appropriate forum
In a significant judgment delivered on October 6, 2026, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice S. Karthikeyan, ruled that a proposed accused person has no legal standing to appeal against an order directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) and investigation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The case arose when the petitioner, C. Kanmani, who was named as an accused in a complaint filed under the SC/ST Act, challenged the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Tenkasi, directing the Station House Officer at Puliyangudi to register an FIR and initiate investigation. The petitioner filed appeals under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act against the trial court's order, which were converted from earlier petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) as per the Registry's directions.
The High Court emphasized that at the pre-cognizance stage, the proposed accused cannot be considered an aggrieved party and therefore lacks locus standi to challenge the registration of an FIR or the direction to investigate. The Court reiterated that the FIR is not a conclusive record of facts but merely the starting point for investigation. It is the duty of the police to conduct a thorough inquiry to determine whether an offense has been committed and by whom. If the investigation reveals no offense, the police may file a closure report.
The Court relied on precedents including the Allahabad High Court's ruling in Kamlesh Meena v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 AHC 123424) and the Supreme Court's decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which collectively hold that prospective accused have no right to challenge an order directing investigation before the summoning or cognizance stage.
While dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner as not maintainable, the Madras High Court granted liberty to the proposed accused to challenge the orders by filing appropriate proceedings before the competent forum. The Court clarified that the investigation stage is sacrosanct and courts should ordinarily not interfere with police investigation orders, except in rare circumstances involving abuse of process.
This ruling reinforces the principle that the investigation process under the SC/ST Act should be allowed to proceed unhindered to ensure justice for victims of atrocities, while also safeguarding the procedural rights of accused persons through appropriate legal channels at the correct stage of proceedings.
Bottom Line:
SC/ST Act - Appeal under Section 14-A(1) against order directing registration of FIR/investigation at pre-cognizance stage - Proposed accused is not an aggrieved party and has no locus standi to challenge such order - At investigation stage, no interference is warranted - However, liberty may be granted to challenge the impugned order by appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
Statutory provision(s):
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 14-A(1), Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 173, 175(3), 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 173, 175(3), 528
C.Kanmani v. State of Tamilnadu, (Madras)(Madurai Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996431
