# Asha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 644
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-06
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4027 of 2024
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/asha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54518
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Mandatory Registration
of First Information Report - Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 4 - Under the Act, it is the duty of
a public servant to read out to an
informant the information given orally and
reduced to writing, and to register a
complaint or a First Information Report.
Under
Section
18A(1)
of
the
Act,
preliminary enquiry is not required for the
registration of a First Information Report
against any person - Scheduled Castes and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Rule 5 - It is the
statutory duty of the concerned police
station, including its officers, to follow the
mandate under the SC/ST Act, and an FIR
should be registered. (Para 5)
B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995 - Registration of First Information
Report - In the instant case, the First
Information Report was not registered by
the concerned Police Officer at the Police
Station.
Since
the
F.I.R.
was
not
registered, the victim approached the
Superintendent of Police. The S.P. also did
not follow the mandate u/s 4 of the SC/ST
Act as well as Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules.
Thereafter, the learned Special Court
rejected the complaint of the victim. Held
: Learned Special Court, while passing the
impugned order, instead of directing the
concerned Police Station to register the
First Information Report, conducted the
inquiry himself, which is prohibited under
Section 18A of the SC/ST Act. Impugned
order set aside. (Para 11)
Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
43. A copy of this order along with
the record of the trial court be immediately
sent to the trial court for compliance.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 644
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4027 of 2024

Asha ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Dhirendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Mandatory Registration
of First Information Report - Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 -
Section 4 - Under the Act, it is the duty of
a public servant to read out to an
informant the information given orally and
reduced to writing, and to register a
complaint or a First Information Report.
Under
Section
18A(1)
of
the
Act,
preliminary enquiry is not required for the
registration of a First Information Report
against any person - Scheduled Castes and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995, Rule 5 - It is the
statutory duty of the concerned police
station, including its officers, to follow the
mandate under the SC/ST Act, and an FIR
should be registered. (Para 5)
B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,
1995 - Registration of First Information
Report - In the instant case, the First
Information Report was not registered by
the concerned Police Officer at the Police
Station.
Since
the
F.I.R.
was
not
registered, the victim approached the
Superintendent of Police. The S.P. also did
not follow the mandate u/s 4 of the SC/ST
Act as well as Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules.
Thereafter, the learned Special Court
rejected the complaint of the victim. Held
: Learned Special Court, while passing the
impugned order, instead of directing the
concerned Police Station to register the
First Information Report, conducted the
inquiry himself, which is prohibited under
Section 18A of the SC/ST Act. Impugned
order set aside. (Para 11)
Allowed. (E-5)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant
and
learned
A.G.A.
for
respondent State.

2.

Under
challenge
is
the
impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed
by the learned Special Judge SC./ST Act
Raebareli in Criminal Misc Case Number
709 of 2024 vide the application of the
applicant under Section 173(4) BNSS
(earlier 156(3) Cr.P.C.) has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the
appellant submits that one Yashwant
Maurya has made physical relationship
with the applicant on the false pretext of
marriage and on 4.8.2024 when she asked
him to marry he has given life threat to her
and also abused her on the basis of caste as
she is related to chamar caste. The
applicant has moved an application to the
Police Station Jagatpur district Raebereli
for registering the FIR, however, no action
was taken by the police. Then an
application dated 4.9.2024 has been moved
1 All. Asha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
645
by the applicant to Superintendent
of Police Raebareli through registered post.
Still
no
action
was
taken
by
the
Superintendent
of
Police
Raebareli.
Thereafter the applicant has moved an
application under Section 173(4) BNSS
(Earlier 156(3) Cr.P.C.) on 12.9.2024. Upon
which a report was sought by the court
from
the
concerned
police
station
Jagatpur. The report dated 2.10.2024 was
received by the learned Special Court,
however learned court below instead of
directing to register the FIR has conducted
enquiry himself and rejected the complaint,
which is clear violation of Section 4 of the
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act'),
Rule 5 of the the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as
'SC/ST Rules') and also it is against the
provisions
of
Section
18(A)(1)
The
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
objection, however, could not dispute the
statutory/mandatory duties of the public
servant under the SC/ST Act.

5. Perused the record.

6. Section 4 of the SC/ST Act
provides punishment to the public servants
who willfully neglects his duties required
to be performed by him under this Act and
the rules made thereunder.

7. Sub-section 2 (a) of Section 4 of
the SC/ST Act further provides that upon
receiving the oral information from the
informant it shall be read out to the
informant and shall be reduced into writing
by the concerned public servant/Police
Officer. Sub-section 2(b) of Section 4 of the
SC/ST Act provides that a complaint or a
First
Information
Report
shall
be
registered. Likewise Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
of the SC/ST Rules also provides that every
information relating to the commission of
an offence under the SC/ST Act, given
orally to an officer in-charge of a police
station shall be reduced to writing by him
or under his direction, and be read over to
the informant, and every such information
shall be signed by the persons giving his
complaint and the substance thereof shall
be entered in a book to be maintained by
that police station. A copy of the
information so recorded under sub-rule (1)
of Rule 5 of SC/ST Rules shall be given
forthwith free of cost to the informant. Sub
rule (3) of Rule 5 of SC/ST Rules provides
any person aggrieved by a refusal on the
part of an officer incharge of a police
station to record the information referred to
in sub-rule (1) may send the substance of
such information, in writing and by post, to
the Superintendent of Police concerned
who after investigation either by himself or
by a police officer not below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall
make an order in writing to the officer incharge of the concerned police station to
enter the substance of that information to
be entered in the book to be maintained by
the police station.

8. Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and
Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules are extracted
below:-

Section 4. Punishment for
neglect of duties.?
"(1)
Whoever,
being
a
public servant but not being a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects
his duties required to be performed
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by him under this Act and the rules
made
thereunder,
shall
be
punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than
six months but which may extend to
one year. (2) The duties of public
servant referred to in sub-section
(1) shall include?? (a) to read out
to an informant the information
given orally, and reduced to writing
by the officer in charge of the
police station, before taking the
signature of the informant; (b) to
register a complaint or a First
Information Report under this Act
and other relevant provisions and
to register it under appropriate
sections of this Act; (c) to furnish a
copy of the information so recorded
forthwith to the informant; (d) to
record the statement of the victims
or witnesses; (e) to conduct the
investigation and file charge sheet
in the Special Court or the
Exclusive Special Court within a
period of sixty days, and to explain
the delay if any, in writing; (f) to
correctly
prepare,
frame
and
translate
any
document
or
electronic record; (g) to perform
any other duty specified in this Act
or the rules made thereunder:
Provided that the charges in this
regard against the public servant
shall
be
booked
on
the
recommendation
of
an
administrative enquiry. (3) The
cognizance in respect of any
dereliction of duty referred to in
sub-section (2) by a public servant
shall be taken by the Special Court
or the Exclusive Special Court and
shall give direction for penal
proceedings against such public
servant.]"
Rule 5. Information to
police officer in-charge of a police
station ?
"(1)
Every
information
relating to the commission of an
offence under the Act, if given
orally to an officer in-charge of a
police station shall be reduced to
writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the
informant,
and
every
such
information,
whether
given
in
writing or reduced to writing as
aforesaid, shall be signed by the
person giving it, and the substance
thereof shall be entered in a book
to be maintained by that police
station.
(2)
A
copy
of
the
information as so recorded under
sub-rule (1) above shall be given
forth-with free of cost, to the
informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved
by a refusal on the part of an
officer in-charge of a police station
to record the information referred
to in sub-rule (1) may send the
substance of such information, in
writing and writing any by post, to
the
Superintendent
of
Police
concerned who, after investigation
either by himself or by police
officer not below the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
shall make an order in writing to
the
officer
in-charge
of
the
concerned police station to enter
the substance of that information to
be entered in the book to be
maintained by that police station."

9. Prima facie, from perusal of the
aforesaid Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and
Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules, it is evident that
1 All. Arun Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
647
it was the statutory duty of the
concerned police station, including its
officers, to follow the mandate under the
SC/ST Act, and an FIR should have been
registered.

10. Section 18A of the SC/ST Act
provides rather prohibits that no inquiry or
approval is required for registering the FIR.
The relevant paragraph of Section 18A of
SC/ST Act is extracted below:-

"18A.
No
enquiry
or
approval required.?
(1) For the purposes of this
Act,?
(a)
preliminary
enquiry
shall
not
be
required
for
registration of a First Information
Report against any person; or
(b) the investigating officer
shall not require approval for the
arrest, if necessary, of any person,
against whom an accusation of
having committed an offence under
this Act has been made and no
procedure other than that provided
under this Act or the Code shall
apply."

11. From a perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that the learned
Magistrate has inquired into the factum
before passing the impugned order. Thus, in
fact, he has conducted an inquiry himself,
which is prohibited under the Act. In this
case, the First Information Report should
have been registered by the concerned
Police Officer at the Police Station,
Jagatpur.
Since
the
F.I.R.
was
not
registered,
she
approached
the
Superintendent of Police Raebareli. He also
appears to have not followed the mandate
under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act as well as
Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules. Thereafter,
learned Special Court, while passing the
impugned order, instead of directing the
concerned Police Station to register the
First Information Report, conducted the
inquiry himself, which is prohibited under
Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act. Thus, in
view of the aforesaid discussion, this
impugned order cannot be sustained and is
liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
18.11.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli is hereby
quashed and the matter is remanded to
the learned court below to decide the
application filed by the applicant/victim
under Section 173(4) BNSS and pass a
fresh order within a period of one month
from the date of production of the
certified copy of this order in view of the
discussion
made
herein-above
and
keeping in view the mandatory provisions
of the SC/ST Act as well as the SC/ST
Rules.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 647
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4817 of 2019
&
Criminal Appeal No. 4639 of 2019

Arun Kumar Yadav & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Anand Kumar Mishra, Sri Ashwini Kumar
Awasthi, Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Sri Manish
Pandey (Sr. Adv.)