The Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the issue of the scope of inquiry by a lower court in matters concerning members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, observed that merely because a person belongs to the SC/ST community, the court is not bound to direct registration of an FIR in every case.
The Court clarified that,
“Therefore, the Special Court or Magistrate is not bound to direct registration of an FIR in every case merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. The Court must first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.”
The observation was made by the single bench of Justice Anil Kumar (X) while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by Kusum Kannaujiya.
The Court noted that an application under Section 173(4) BNSS, 2023 cannot be decided mechanically. The court must apply its judicial mind to the allegations contained in the application and assess the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether directing an immediate police investigation is necessary.
If the Court finds that an immediate police investigation is not required, it may treat the application as a complaint case and proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed for such cases by recording the statements of the complainant and witnesses.
The appellant had challenged the order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh, who had rejected her application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS, 2023.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court ought to have directed the registration of an FIR. Instead, the court conducted its own inquiry into the allegations made in the application. According to the counsel, it is a settled position of law that a Special Court does not have the authority to conduct such an inquiry while considering an application under Section 173(4) BNSS.
It was further submitted that Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with Rule 5 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, prohibits the Court from conducting such an inquiry on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS.
However, the Government Advocate submitted that the SC/ST Act does not contain any provision restricting the Court from exercising its discretion while dealing with an application under Section 173(4) BNSS. The Court, he argued, is not required to act merely as a “post office” by mechanically directing registration of an FIR in every case.
The Court then framed the following questions for consideration:
“(1) Whether a Special Court/Magistrate is bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS by a victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community?
(2) Whether the provisions of Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules apply to a Special Court while considering an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS by a victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe community.”
Addressing the above mentioned questions, the Court held that the provisions contained in Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and Rule 5 of the SC/ST Rules mainly govern the obligations of police officials and public servants and do not place any restriction on the judicial discretion of the court.
The Court further emphasised that,
“The power conferred upon the Court under Section 173(4) BNSS, which is similar to the power earlier exercised under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is discretionary in nature.”
The High Court further referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287 and observed that directions for registration of an FIR should not be issued mechanically. The Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind before passing such an order.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC
710 emphasising that courts dealing with SC/ST Act cases must examine whether the allegations prima facie establish a caste-related offence.
Accordingly, finding no legal infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, the High Court dismissed the present appeal.
Case: Kusum Kannaujiya vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Date of Order: 09.03.2026
See the Order: Kusum Kannaujiya vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
