The Allahabad High Court has annulled a directive from a special court in Maharajganj ordering the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against a sub-inspector, a constable, and approximately 20 police personnel. The high court stated that the order was issued in a “casual” manner and did not adhere to the statutory requirements outlined under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Concerns Raised Over Judicial Process

Justice Santosh Rai, while delivering the judgement, expressed serious concerns regarding the handling of the matter by the Special Judge, SCST Act, Maharajganj. He noted that the manner in which the judge addressed the application under Section 173(4) was troubling. According to Justice Rai, the order demonstrated a significant lack of understanding of criminal law principles and the necessary procedures mandated by the BNSS and established by the Supreme Court.

In his remarks, the judge pointed out, “The impugned order reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic principles of criminal law and procedure on the part of the Special Judge.” This criticism formed a key part of the judgement as the court evaluated the procedural errors made by the lower court.

The case originated from a complaint submitted under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. The complaint was brought forth by Sheela, aged 29, and Anju, aged 26, both residents of Basantpur village in Maharajganj district. They alleged that there was a dispute concerning land and financial matters between their family and another family led by Ramasare. The situation escalated on the night of June 6 when a confrontation resulted in injuries to individuals from both parties.

Details of the Allegations

The plaintiffs claimed that on the same night, police detained certain individuals without any search warrant and reportedly made caste-based remarks. Specifically, sub-inspector Rakesh Kumar Yadav and constable Amit Kumar were implicated, along with around 20 other police officers, none of whom were female. The high court noted that the special court issued the order despite not thoroughly reviewing the comments or evidence provided regarding the alleged actions of the police personnel.

The police counsel countered these allegations by asserting that claims of physical search, inappropriate behaviour, and intimidation were vague and lacked sufficient substantiation. They argued that since the incident occurred within private premises, the requirement of “public view” stipulated under the SCST Act was not met, calling into question the applicability of the law in this case.

Furthermore, the appellants argued that the special court failed to observe crucial procedural safeguards as outlined in Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of the BNSS. The police personnel’s legal representation maintained that the necessary inquiries had not been initiated and that the special judge did not record appropriate reasons for bypassing those inquiries.

Final Ruling and Implications

In its judgement, the high court took into consideration the submissions and record before it. It concluded that the special judge had not exercised the appropriate jurisdiction in accordance with the legal requirements under Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of the BNSS. The court emphasized that the lower court’s failure to conduct an inquiry was a significant oversight.

In light of these findings, the Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR order, asserting that the statutory procedures were not followed properly. This ruling underscores the necessity for adherence to established legal protocols in handling such cases, particularly those involving sensitive matters such as caste-related allegations.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share