# Soni Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. 390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 389
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-07
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 12864 of 2021
- **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/soni-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-390-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-49236
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes & the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14 -
Amendment
Act
No.
1
of
2016
-
Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Cognizance -
Offence punishable under SC/ST Act -
Held, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to
entertain and take cognizance of offence
under the Act of 1989 - Vide second
proviso to Section 14 (1) of SC/ST Act, Act
No.
1
of
2016,
the
Special
Courts
constituted under the aforesaid Act have
been empowered to take cognizance of
offence directly under this Act with effect
from 1.1.2016 and therefore, the powers
vested u/s 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. has come to
an end. (Para 16 and 23)

B. Criminal Law - S.C. & S.T. (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 15(9) &
18-A (1) (a) - S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities)
Rules
1995
-
Rule
5
-
Application u/s 156(3) was treated as the
Complaint case - Permissibility - Held,
Special Judge cannot treat the application
u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.
(Para 24 and 31)

Applications allowed. (E-1)

## Text

5 All. Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
389

 (emphasis supplied)

3. The learned Additional Solicitor
General has pointed out a decision of this Court
in Electrical Engineer v. Satyendra Rai
[Electrical Engineer v. Satyendra Rai, (2014) 4
SCC 513] , wherein this Court has specifically
held in para 9 as follows: (SCC p. 516)

"9. ... Therefore, considering the
language of Para 4 of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons, it is clear that the amendment
brought in is clarificatory in nature and as such,
it would take into its ambit even the pending
matters and in that sense, it would be a
retrospective amendment."

To that extent, the other decision of
this Court in Vishal Agrawal v. Chhattisgarh
SEB [Vishal Agrawal v. Chhattisgarh SEB,
(2014) 3 SCC 696 : (2014) 4 SCC (Cri) 674]
also plays the same role.

4. In view of the above-cited
decisions of this Court, wherein it has been
specifically stated that it is clear from the
language of Para 4 of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons that the amendment brought in is
clarificatory in nature and as such it would be
a retrospective amendment, we hold that the
impugned order [Mustaq v. State of U.P., 2006
SCC OnLine All 1430 : (2006) 6 All LJ 257]
passed by the High Court cannot be given
effect to and is hereby set aside and direct that
the orders passed by this Court, which we
have cited hereinabove, be followed.

11. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts,
it is no longer open to the learned counsel for
the applicant to argue that the learned Special
Judge could not take cognizance of the case on
the basis of a Police report filed against the
applicant. The judgment of the Division Bench
in Mustaq would not at all come to the
applicant's rescue. The said judgment has been
set aside by the Supreme Court in Mustaq
alias Mustafa. Also, the Supreme Court has
held the amendment makes the offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Act of
2003 cognizable by virtue of the amendment
to Section 151 of the Act of 2003 and has done
so retrospectively. The reasoning there is that
the amendment is clarificatory, and therefore,
retrospective.

12. Be that as it may, the law has now been
finally settled that in respect of an FIR or
complaint pending prior to the date of the
amendment, the amended provisions brought
vide Act No. 26 of 2007 would apply with
retrospective effect and not prospectively. Here,
the amendment came into force with effect from
15.06.2007 and the offence was committed on
10.08.2005, but, that would not be a ground, as
Mr. S.N. Singh wants, to quash the impugned
proceedings, in view of the consistent holding of
the Supreme Court that the amendment is
retrospective, making the offence under Section
135 of the Act of 2003 cognizable.

13. No other point was pressed.

14. This application stands rejected.

15. It goes without saying that this order
shall not adversely affect the applicant's right,
if so advised, to move for discharge at the
appropriate stage.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 389
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 12864 of 2021
With
Application U/S 482 No. 27758 of 2021
And Other Connected Cases

Soni Devi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rashid Ali, Sri S.B. SIngh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Saurabh Kumar, Sri Sudhir Kumar
Agarwal

A. Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes & the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14 -
Amendment
Act
No.
1
of
2016
-
Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Cognizance -
Offence punishable under SC/ST Act -
Held, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to
entertain and take cognizance of offence
under the Act of 1989 - Vide second
proviso to Section 14 (1) of SC/ST Act, Act
No.
1
of
2016,
the
Special
Courts
constituted under the aforesaid Act have
been empowered to take cognizance of
offence directly under this Act with effect
from 1.1.2016 and therefore, the powers
vested u/s 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. has come to
an end. (Para 16 and 23)

B. Criminal Law - S.C. & S.T. (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 15(9) &
18-A (1) (a) - S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities)
Rules
1995
-
Rule
5
-
Application u/s 156(3) was treated as the
Complaint case - Permissibility - Held,
Special Judge cannot treat the application
u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.
(Para 24 and 31)

Applications allowed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.B.Singh, learned
counsel holding brief of Sri Rashid Ali,
learned counsel for the applicant in leading
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
along with other counsel in the connected
applications, Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2
and Sri Rajeshwar Singh, along with Sri
Rakesh
Chandra
Srivastava
learned
A.G.As. assisted by Sri Madnesh Prasad
Singh, State Law Officer learned counsel
for the State.

2. The germane facts of the aforesaid
applications are as under:

(1) APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -
12864 of 2021

3. The applicant is the complainant in
the present case.

4. The applicant belongs to Scheduled
Caste category having bhumidhar of
Khasra plot situated in Village Asana,
which is adjacent to the property of the
opposite party no.2. The opposite party
no.2 started raising illegal construction
over the plot of applicant and when she
resisted, the opposite party no.2 herself
moved an application for demarcation of
her boundary, upon which the SubDivisional-Officer after calling for the
report
from
the
Revenue
Inspector,
measured the land and it was found that the
opposite party no.2 has illegally entered
into the property of the applicant. Again on
09.07.2020 at about 3 P.M. the opposite
party no.2 tried to encroached upon the
applicant's property and when she objected,
the
opposite
party
no.2
used
caste
indicating words and had beaten her in
which she sustained injuries which were
examined. She moved an application before
the concerned police station for registering
the case but the same was not lodged.
Thereafter she moved an application before
the Superintendent of Police on 27.07.2020
but to no avail. Thus, she was constrained
to file an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge SC/ST
Act, which was treated as a complaint case
vide order dated 19.01.2021, which order is
impugned in the present application.
5 All. Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
391

(2) APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -
27758 of 2021

5. The applicants in this application
are accused persons.

6. The opposite party no.2 had given
Rs. 1,68,000/- to the applicant no.1 for
executing a sale deed in his favour,
however neither the sale deed was executed
nor
the
amount
was
returned.
On
07.10.2019 at about 3 P.M. the opposite
party no.2 along with co-villagers Mobin,
Sanjay, Furquan and Jai Karan reached the
house of the applicant no.1 Prem, where all
the accused persons (applicants) came out
with lathi and danda, used Un-Parliamentary
language and caste indicating words. When
the informant/opposite party no.2 went to
lodge a report, his report was not lodged, due
to which, the opposite party no.2 sent an
application before the Superintendent of
Police but no heed was paid, therefore the
opposite party no.2 moved an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was
treated as a complaint case vide order dated
07.09.2020 in which, after recording of the
statements under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. the learned Additional Sessions
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha
vide order dated 19.10.2021 summoned the
accused-applicants
to
face
trial
under
Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Section 3 (1)
Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Hasanpur,
District Amroha. Being aggrieved by the
summoning order, the accused-applicants
have challenged the entire proceedings
pursuant to the summoning order before this
Court.

(3) APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -
27812 of 2021

7. The applicants in this application
are accused in the present case.

8. On 28.07.2019 at about 4 P.M.
when the opposite party no.2 was feeding
her cows in the garden, the applicants
armed with Danda and Axe came and
started abusing her using caste indicating
remarks and asked her as to how her cows
entered into their field upon which altercation
took place and they pushed her, due to which
she fell down. Thereafter they mercilessly
beaten her cows due to which the udders of the
cows got burst. The opposite party no.2
returned to her house and told the entire
happening to her husband. Again at about 11
P.M. the accused-applicants came to her house
and pelted stones upon her door, used caste
indicating words but due to fear, she did not
open the door. Her husband made a call on
100 number and intimated the police about the
incident. Thereafter, she went to lodge a first
information report at Police Station Churki but
the same was not lodged and a written report
to the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun at Orai
was sent by registered post on 03.08.2019 but
the same met with same fate. Being aggrieved
by the same, the opposite party no.2 filed an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in
the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
Jalaun at Orai on 07.08.2019, which was
treated as complaint case and registered as
Complaint Case No.51 of 2019 (Smt. Usha
Devi Vs. Arvind Batham and others). After
recording of the statements under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the accused-applicants
were summoned to face trial under Sections
504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (Da) (Dha)
of SC/ST Act, Police Station Churkhi,
District Jalaun vide order dated 29.10.2021.
The accused-applicants by means of the
instant application have challenged the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
29.10.2021 passed in the aforesaid complaint
case.

(4) APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -
4382 of 2022
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The applicant is the complainant in
the instant case.

10. The applicant filed an application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court
of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Allahabad on
03.09.2021 with the averments that he
came to know through his acquaintance Sri
Guddo Mishra (Opposite party No.4) the
selling of land by one Jamuna Prasad
(opposite party no.3) situated at Village
Brijsinghpur alias Ramgarh which is near
to the house of his in-laws, he approached
Jamuna Prasad and Arazi No. 256 area
0.2005 Hectare was agreed to be sold for a
sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Thereafter, said Jamuna Prasad (opposite
party no.3) told the applicant to have
conversaton regarding land through Guddo
Mishra (opposite party no.4) and whenever
Guddo Mishra (opposite party no.4) would
ask him to execute the deed, the deed will
be executed. With regard to the aforesaid
transaction, Rs.50,000/- was advanced on
22.06.2021, to the Jamuna Prasad (opposite
party no.3) in presence of Guddo Mishra
(opposite party no.4) as well as in presence
of witnesses namely Ram Murat, Pyare Lal,
Samarjeet and Anil Kumar. Against which,
the opposite party no.3 Jamuna Prasad
issued a receipt on a stamp paper of Rs. 10
and the remaining Rs. 9,50,000/- was
agreed to be paid through cheque at the
time of execution of the sale deed. On
01.08.2021 the Guddo Mishra-opposite
party no.4 came to the applicant and stated
that Jamuna Prasad-opposite party no.4 is
in urgent need of money and now he wants
Rs. 4 lacs in cash, remaining Rs. 5,50,000/-
through cheque. He further told to get the
sale deed executed within one or two days.
The applicant somehow managed the
money and rushed to the Tehsil Soraon,
District Allahabad on 03.08.2021 for
execution of the sale deed in his favour of
his wife, namely, Smt. Usha. The accusedopposite party nos. 3 and 4 asked the
applicant to handover the cash and cheque
amount, whereupon, cheques nos. 227225
and 227226 amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-
and Rs. 3,00,000/- respectively and cash
Rs. 4 lacs were handed over to the opposite
party no.3-Jamuna Prasad in presence of
witnesses Gyan Chand and Anil in the
Tehsil premises. The opposite party no.3 after
taking the cheques and cash handed over to
opposite party no.4 and asked him to count the
same, in the meantime, he was putting his
signatures on the deed. The opposite party no.4
Guddo Mishra took away the cheques and cash
and at the time of putting signatures and thumb
impression on the photo copy of the deed in
front of the Registrar, the accused-opposite
party no.3 Jamuna Prasad avoided the same and
told to wait for Guddo Mishra to come. In the
meantime the opposite party no.3 also went
away on the pretext that he is going to search
Guddo Mishra-opposite party no.3 but he did
not return till late evening. On the next day, the
applicant alongwith his associates had traced
out the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, who abused
him and used caste indicating words and
threatened them to forget the money, failing
which to face dire consequences. With regard to
the aforesaid incident, the applicant had given
an application before the Station House Officer,
Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad but
nothing was done, therefore the applicant sent
an application dated 12.08.2021 before the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj
through registered post, however nothing was
done and thus the applicant was constrained to
file an application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act,
Allahabad which was dismissed vide order
dated 12.10.2021.

(5) APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -
6688 of 2022
5 All. Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393

11. The subject matter in the instant
application is different from the aforesaid
applications and it appears that due to
inadvertent the same has been wrongly
connected with the present case.

(6) CRIMINAL REVISION No. -
2363 of 2021

12. The subject matter in the present
revision is also different from the aforesaid
applications and it appears that due to
inadvertent the same has been wrongly
connected with the present case.

13. Sri S.B.Singh, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that the order dated
19.1.2021 passed by the Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra treating the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as
a complaint case is against the law. He
further submits that the applicant makes out
a prima facie case for registration of the
F.I.R. but the learned Court below without
considering the same has passed an order to
convert the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.c. as a complaint case. He next submits
that if the information relating to the
commission of an offence under the SC/ST
Act, if given orally to an officer incharge of
the police station that should be reduced in
writing or under his direction and be read over
to the informant and every such information
whether given in writing or reduced to writing
as aforestated, shall be signed by the persons
giving it and the substance thereof shall be
entered in a book maintained by the said
Police Station. In the instant case, the
complainant had filed an application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration of the
case, which was rejected. On the other hand,
the Court below has committed an illegality by
treating the case as a complaint case. He next
submits that the Special Judge is not
empowered to convert the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case
against the offence under the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act. He next submits that the F.I.R.
ought to have been lodged by the concerned
official of the Police station. He next submits
that the order passed by learned Special Judge
is contrary to the provisions of the Act. He
also submits that a special duty has been
casted upon the police officials, on receiving
information of incident, to lodge an F.I.R. and
in case of failure to do so, provision has been
made for awarding punishment under section
4 of the Act.

14. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as
well as learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 has submitted that the impugned orders
have been passed in accordance with law after
considering the factual and legal aspects of the
matter and thus there is no illegality in the
impugned orders. Learned A.G.A. further
submits that Section 190 Cr.P.C. provides for
cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate
and sub-Section (1) (a) provides that any
Magistrate of the first class and any Magistrate
of second class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub-Section (2) may take
cognizance of any offence upon receiving a
complaint of facts which constitute such
offences.

15. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the applicants submits that after
the amendment in the Section 14 of SC/ST
Act, powers have been conferred upon
Special Judge and therefore Section 190 (1)
(a) Cr.P.C. stood barred and in matter of
SC/ST,
the
powers
of
the
learned
Magistrate
to
take
cognizance
is
extinguished
due
to
the
aforesaid
amendment.

16. Now the question before this
Court is to see, whether the Magistrate can
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
directly
take
cognizance
of
offence
punishable under SC/ST Act or it is the
Special Court constituted under Section 14
of the Act, which has the jurisdiction to
take cognizance in view of amendment
made
in
provisions
of
SC/ST
Act,
Amended Act 2015 (Act No.1 of 2016) and
the second question before this Court is,
whether the Special Judge can treat the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
as a complaint case or not.

17. Now, in light of the provisions of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as
amended by the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 2015 [Act 1 of 2016], to resolve the
aforesaid issue, it is necessary to go
through the definition of the term ''Special
Court' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act,
which reads as follows:

"Special Court, means a Court of
Session specified as a Special Court in
Section 14."

Section 14 of the Act, before the
amendment Act of 2015, was as follows:

"14. Special Court.- For the
purpose of providing for speedy trial, the
State
Government
shall,
with
the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify for each district a Court of
Session to be a Special Court to try the
offences under this Act."

18. A reading of the said provision
would indicate that a Court of Session shall
be notified as a Special Court.

19. Section 14 of the SC/ST Act was
drastically amended by the Amendment
Act (1 of 2016). Section 14 has now been
replaced by an entirely new provision.
Thus, the amended Section 14 of the Act
reads as follows:

14. (1) For the purpose of
providing for speedy trial, the State
Government shall, with the concurrence of
the Chief Justice of the High Court, by
notification
in
the
Official
Gazette,
establish an Exclusive Special Court for
one or more Districts:

Provided that in Districts where
less number of cases under this Act is
recorded, the State Government shall, with
the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify for such Districts, the
Court of Session to be a Special Court to
try the offences under this Act:

Provided further that the Courts
so established or specified shall have
powers to take cognizance directly of
offences under this Act.

20. Thus in Section 14 (1), for the
purpose of providing for speedy trial, the
State
Government
shall,
with
the
concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification in the Official
Gazette, establish an Exclusive Special
Court for one or more Districts:

21. Provided that in Districts where
less number of cases under this Act is
recorded, the State Government shall, with
the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify for such Districts, the
Court of Session to be a Special Court to
try the offences under this Act:

22. Provided further that the Courts so
established or specified shall have powers
to take cognizance directly of offences
under this Act in view of amended
provisions, exclusive Special Court as well
5 All. Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395
as Special Court shall exercise original
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offence under the Act and proceed with
trial of the case not being hindered by
Section 193 Cr.P.C. The said Special
Courts, were not originally empowered to
take
cognizance
of
offence
under
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
directly as the Special Courts were
hindered by Section 193 of Code of
Criminal Procedure as already pointed out
under the Special Court notified as per first
proviso to Section 14 of the Act, as
amended, has got power to directly take
cognizance without there being any need
for committal.

23. Therefore, the question as to
whether the Magistrate can directly take
cognizance of offence punishable under
SC/ST Act or it is the Special Court
constituted under Section 14 of the Act,
1989 which has the jurisdiction to take
cognizance in view of amendment made in
provisions of SC/ST Act, Amended Act
2015 (Act No.1 of 2016). The reply thereto
is that Magistrate has absolutely no
jurisdiction
to
entertain
and
take
cognizance of offence under Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Vide second proviso
to Section 14 (1) of SC/ST Act, Act No.1
of 2016, the Special Courts constituted
under
the
aforesaid
Act
have
been
empowered to take cognizance of offence
directly under this Act with effect from
1.1.2016 and therefore, the powers vested
under Section 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. has come
to an end. Answered accordingly.

24. The second question for
consideration before this Court is as to
whether the Special Judge can treat the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
as a complaint case or not.

25. To determine the aforesaid
question, it is necessary to go through
Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Rules 1995.

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 persons
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 forthwith, 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 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.
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. In case, no action is taken then the
aggrieved person has a right for redressal of
his grievance under Section 15 (9) of the
SC/SC Act by filing a complaint before the
Special/Exclusive Special Judge, as the case
may be, who shall refer the complaint to the
supervisory
Administrative
Committee
framed under Section 21 (iv) of the SC/ST
Act read with Rule 4(4) and Rule 17 of the
SC/ST Rules, which was replaced by G.S.R.
424 (E) dated 14.04.2016 (w.e.f 14.04.2016)

27. Section 18 A (1) (a) Scheduled
Castes and the Schduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act 1989 as amended by the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act
2018, is in the following terms:-

"18A. No enquiry or approval
required-- (1) For the purpose of this Act (a)
preliminary enquiry shall not be required for
registration of a First Information Report
against any person."

28. As no enquiry or approval is
required
for
registration
of
the
first
information report against any person under
Section 18A of the Act and in case F.I.R. is
not lodged, Section 4 (1) of the Act provides
for punishment of a public servant in
neglecting it's duties, after following the
procedure as has been provided under Section
5 (3) of the Rules. Section 4 (1) of the Act
reads as under:-

"4(1) Whoever, being a public
servant but not being a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
willfully neglects his duties required to be
performed 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."

4(2) The duties of the public
servant 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.

29. Section 4 (3) of the Act provides
that the cognizance in respect of any
dereliction of duty referred to in subsection (2) by a public servant shall be
taken by the Special Court or Exclusive
Special Court and shall give direction for
penal proceedings against such public
servant.

30. Considering Rule 5 of the SC/ST
Rules 1995 as amended by The Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,
2018, it is borne out that every information
relating to commission of an offence under
the Act, if given orally to an officer
incharge of the police station shall be
5 All. Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
reduced to writing since there is no bar
under Section 18A of the Act that
preliminary enquiry or approval is required
for registration of the first information
report and on refusal to reduce in writing
such information by the police officer, the
aggrieved person may move an application
in writing and by post to the concerned
Superintendent of Police, who may 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
information to be entered in the book to be
maintained by that police station. Further,
in case the grievance is not redressed, the
aggrieved person may approach the Special
Court or the Exclusive Special Court
against the public servant for punishing
him under Section 4 of the Act, for
neglecting his duties by a public servant but
not being member of Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe. Even if the grievance is
not redressed, the aggrieved person may
file a complaint under Section 15 (9) of
SC/ST Act before the Special/Exclusive
Special Judge, who shall refer the matter
before
the
Administrative
Committee
formed under Section 21 (iv) of SC/ST Act
Rules 4 (4) and Rule (17) of the SC/ST
Rules for punishing the officer in charge as
per provisions of Section 4 of the Act.

31. Therefore, the answer to the
second question that the Special Judge can
treat the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. as a complaint case or not? Answer
is "No" in view of the Rule 5 (1) of the
amended Act.

32. The case in hand is that in Criminal
Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
No. - 12864 of 2021, which is the leading
case, the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act
Sonebhadra has treated the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case
vide order dated 19.01.2021, which in the
opinion of the Court is not tenable in the eyes
of law.

33. The second and third case being
Criminal Misc. Application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Nos. 27758 & 27812 of 2021,
wherein the accused persons/applicants have
challenged the summoning order dated
19.10.2021 & 29.10.2021 passed by learned
Spacial Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha and
District Jalaun, the proceedings are not
maintainable so far as it relates to nonregistering of the F.I.R. against the accused
persons.

34. In the connected fourth case before
this Court is Criminal Misc. Application
under Section 482 No. 4382 of 2012, the
complainant
has
challenged
the
order
12.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge
(SC/ST Act) Allahabad by which the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has
been rejected. That order, in the considered
opinion of the Court is also not sustainable.

35.

Thus
the
aforesaid
four
applications
are
allowed
and
the
proceedings of the aforesaid case are
quashed
with
liberty
to
the
first
informant/complainant to approach the
concerned Station House Officer for
registration of their information in writing
as has been provided under Section 5 (1) of
the Rules and in case the said information
is not reduced in writing by the concerned
Police
Officer,
the
first
informant/
complainant may move an appropriate
application
before
the
concerned
Superintendent of Police under Section 5
(3) of the Rules and it is expected that the
Superintendent of Police would comply
Section 5 (3) of the Rules.
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. It goes without saying that the
subject
matter
of
Criminal
Misc.
Application U/S 482 No. - 6688 of 2022 as
well as Criminal Revision No. - 2363 of
2021 are different from the aforesaid
applications and it appears that due to
inadvertence both of them have been
wrongly connected and thus the same are
being un-tagged and are directed to listed
as fresh on 13.04.2022 before appropriate
Court.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 398
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 25838 of 2022

Abbas Ansari & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Upendra Upadhyay, Sri Anil Tiwari (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code -
Section 153-A - Offence of promoting
enmity on the ground of religion, race etc.
- Constitution of offence - Intention -
Relevance - Offending words were spoken
in public meeting - Effect - Quashing of
proceeding sought - Permissibility - Held,
the question of proving mens rea to incite
people to violence or cause disorder is to
be proved during trial by leading evidence
by the prosecution. However, if prima
facie,
the
act,
sign
or
words
has
propensity to disturb the public order or
incite
the
people
to
violence,
the
proceedings cannot be quashed at the
threshold - Further held, considering the
context and the intention with which the
offending words were spoken in a public
meeting, at this stage it cannot be said
that the offence under Section 153-A IPC
is not attracted against the petitioners.
(Para 14 and 20)

B. Constitution of India,1950 - Preamble -
Unity
and
Integrity
of
nation
-
Significance
in
dealing
with
criminal
proceeding - Held, Preamble to the
Constitution consciously puts together
fraternity
assuring
dignity
of
the
individual and the unity and integrity of
the Nation which are linked; one in the
form of rights of individuals; and other in
the form of individual's obligation to
others to ensure unity and integrity of the
Nation - The unity and integrity of the
Nation cannot be overlooked and slighted,
as acts that promote or are likely to
promote
divisiveness,
alienation
and
schematism. (Para 17)

Application dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Balwant Singh & anr. Vs St. of Pun.; (1995) 3
SCC 214;

2. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs St. of A.P.; (1997) 7
SCC 431;

3. Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs St. of Mah. & anr.;
(2007) 5 SCC 1;

4. Amish Devgan Vs U.O.I.& ors.; (2021) 1 SCC
1; and

5. Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I.; (2015) 5 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted Sri Upendra
Upadhyay,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General