To set in motion penal proceedings pertaining to negligence of duty by public servant under section 4(2) of SC-ST Act, recommendation of administrative enquiry is a sine qua non: Supreme Court
Justices M.M. Sundresh & S.V.N Bhatti [17-05-2024]

Read Order:PRITI AGARWALLA AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF GNCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO (S). 348 OF 2021]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 21, 2024: The Supreme Court has held that the Metropolitan Magistrate did not commit an illegality in receiving the Action Taken Report from the jurisdictional police station while considering a case u/s 4 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as it is impermissible to take up the merits of negligence of duty by a public servant without recommendation of the administrative enquiry.

The Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy, Eastern Jaunapur, New Delhi (OREA), is a training facility for enthusiastic equestrian athletes. Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 6 and Respondent No. 2 were the trainee athletes in OREA. The complaint in this case was filed in the year 2018 by Appellant No. 4 against the administrator of OREA. The said complaint was not made under any specific section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

The administrator, however, moved an application for anticipatory bail which stood dismissed. Appellant No. 1 and her husband filed yet another complaint against the administrator of OREA, on the alleged ill- treatment meted out to their son/Appellant No. 2 by the administrator. Another complaint alleging sexual harassment, cheating and cruelty towards animals was filed against the administrator by Appellant Nos. 3, 4 and 6. A WhatsApp group Alliance was created by Appellant No. 6, which included Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and another trainee athlete at OREA. The administrator was informed about the conspiracy being hatched by the members of the Alliance WhatsApp group to kill the administrator and attack Respondent No. 2 by pouring acid on Respondent No. 2. 

The administrator filed a complaint for protection and also to prevent any plan being executed either on the administrator or Respondent No. 2 by a few members of the WhatsApp group, Alliance. Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the Appellants herein under the SC/ST Act of 1989, which was the genesis for the present Criminal Appeal.  The Respondent filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application under sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the Act of 1989 before the Special Court on the basis of an application alleging that public servants neglected the duties and functions assigned to them by the Act of 1989. The Metropolitan Magistrate refused to take any action and the respondent approached the Delhi High Court and the Court directed the prosecution of SHO of P.S. Fatehpur Beri. The appeal before the Top Court was filed at the instance of  Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

It was observed by the Top Court that the Metropolitan Magistrate did not commit an illegality or irregularity seeking preliminary inquiry or receiving the Action Taken Report from the jurisdictional police station. 

As per the Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice S.V.N Bhatti, the impugned judgment expanded the discussion and recorded a few findings, which were not needed at all. Therefore, the order of the Magistrate calling upon a report in the circumstances set out above was held to be legal.

Referring to the SC/ST Act, it was opined that the cumulative effect of the structured application to a given situation is that the intentional insult or abuse coupled with the humiliation is made in any place within public view. The allegation, in the instant case, prima facie appeared to be an omnibus and ambiguous allegation. The specific allegation in the complaint on Appellant No. 2 was  that Appellant No. 2 called Respondent No. 2 chuda, chamar, chakka and faggot. The allegation did not refer to the place nor the public view before whom it was made.

On this issue of what constitutes a public place, the Bench held that an important test for any place within public view is within the view of persons other than the complainant. In this case, the allegations read together or individually did not satisfy the requirement of having been made in public view. 

Referring to sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 4, the Bench noted that the commission or omission by a public servant has penal consequences and the willful neglect is recommended by an administrative enquiry and the cognizance can be taken thereafter. As per the Bench, the Magistrate would have the accusation of a party and view of the Department while deciding to take cognizance of the offence or not.

The Bench was of the view that the Metropolitan Magistrate at the relevant point of time was justified in ordering a preliminary inquiry on the application dated 09.05.2018 and receiving the Action Taken Report from the jurisdictional police station. Further, the accusations in the complaints did not satisfy as having been made in any place within public view. Therefore, in a case such as the present, directing registration of FIR and further steps was unsustainable. 

Moreover, taking up the merits of the negligence of duty by the public servant would be without the recommendation of the administrative enquiry and is impermissible. The Metropolitan Magistrate, keeping in perspective the binding precedents under section 156(3) of the CrPC, applied his discretion to the circumstances of the case and concluded that no offence was made out in the application and complaint under section 4 of the Act of 1989. 

Hence, setting aside the impugned judgment, the Bench allowed the Criminal Appeal.