In a criminal appeal filed before the Kerala High Court against an order by the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), Nedumangad, a Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Special Court to pass a speaking order.
The case emanated when a complaint filed by the Health Inspector, Family Health Centre, Veeranakavu (respondent 3) was forwarded to the police for investigation. Thereafter, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and the IO filed a final report on 30-06-2022, in which the IO requested that the Special Court dismiss the proceedings. Upon receiving notice, the Health Inspector filed a protest complaint, which was acted upon by the Special Judge, resulting in the impugned order.
The appellant contended that the impugned order was insufficient, having been passed without any reasons for taking cognizance of the finding that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. It was also asserted that the final report filed as Further Action Dropped (FAD) had not been decided.
The Court noted that the impugned order did not mention what materials had supported the finding that, prima facie, the appellant had committed the said offences, and that the order failed to show whether the final report had been accepted or rejected.
It was said that when the IO files a final report with a request to drop the proceedings after investigation, despite the issuance of notice to the complainant or aggrieved person, the court has a duty to verify the report and either accept or reject it. Finding the impugned order to be cryptic, the Court stated that when serious offences under the SC/ST Act are alleged, the special court should pass a reasonable order justifying the cognizance.
Thus, the Court held that the impugned order was illegal and set it aside. Regarding the filing of an appeal beyond the limitation period, the Court held that the law laid down in Noushad V.T.K. v. State of Kerala 2023 (6) KHC 172 was to be followed, under which Section 14A (3) of the SC/ST Act remains unconstitutional. The Court also stated that, since the proceedings before the Special Court were pending at the time of the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, they were to be dealt with in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Special Court to consider the matter afresh and to pass a speaking order justifying the cognizance, in accordance with the procedure laid down in CrPC. Lastly, the Health Inspector was directed to appear before the Special Court on 27-02-2026.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Arun Chand, Mr. Pramod S.K., Mr. Vinayak G. Menon, Mr. Thareeq Anver, Mr. Bharat Vijay P., Ms. Minu Vittorria Paulson, Ms. Archana P.P., Ms. Shehroon Patel A.K.
For Respondents – Mr. K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, Ms. N.P. Asha (PP)
