Suriya v. Gandhi: Mandatory FIR Registration and Criminal Liability for Police Inaction in SC/ST Panchami Land Dispossession Cases

1. Introduction

The decision in Suriya v. Gandhi, Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 479 of 2022, decided on 20 November 2025 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (per L. Victoria Gowri, J.), is a significant addition to the jurisprudence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act” or “POA Act”).

The case squarely raises – and answers – a set of recurring questions:

Can the police refuse to register a First Information Report (FIR) in an SC/ST complaint by labelling it a “civil dispute”?
Is a preliminary enquiry permissible in the face of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act?
Is prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC required before registering an FIR against police officers for wilful neglect of duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act?
Does Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act require a **departmental recommendation** before criminal proceedings can be initiated against public servants?
How should the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. be applied to Section 156(3) CrPC petitions in SC/ST matters?

The context is especially sensitive: alleged dispossession of a Scheduled Caste family from assignment / “Panchami” lands originally granted to their ancestor, and subsequent alleged inaction—and improper filtering—by the local police.

The judgment affirms an order of the Special Court (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, which had directed registration of an FIR against the Sub-Inspector and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (petitioners in the revision) for alleged wilful neglect of their statutory duties under the SC/ST Act, and for offences under Sections 166-A and 167 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Background and Procedural History

2.1 Parties

Petitioners (in Revision): Suriya and Jananipriya – the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), respectively.
1st Respondent: Gandhi – the defacto complainant, a member of a Scheduled Caste (Hindu Paraiyan).
2nd Respondent: The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station.

2.2 Factual Matrix

The 1st respondent/defacto complainant asserted that:

He belongs to a Scheduled Caste (Hindu Paraiyan).
Lands in Survey Nos. 797/6 (60 cents) and 797/7 (22 cents) were assigned on 28.05.1927 to his ancestor, Kanjikaraiyan.
These lands, described as assignment / Panchami lands, were meant to benefit Scheduled Caste families and are generally treated as inalienable or subject to strong restrictions on transfer.
The lands had allegedly been illegally occupied by one Adaikala Gounder and his son Annadurai, who are non-SC persons.
A civil suit, O.S. No. 253 of 2021, concerning title and related issues, was already pending.

On 30.11.2021, the complainant lodged a complaint with the police, leading to CSR No. 457/2021 (a Community Service Register entry, not a formal FIR). The Sub-Inspector and the DSP:

Issued summons to the complainant on multiple dates.
Conducted an enquiry.
Ultimately closed the matter, terming it a “civil dispute” and refused to register an FIR under the SC/ST Act.

The complainant then moved the Special Court (PCR) at Tiruchirappalli by way of Crl.M.P. No. 347 of 2022 under Section 156(3) CrPC, alleging that:

His complaint disclosed offences under the SC/ST Act (particularly Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(p)) relating to wrongful occupation and dispossession from assignment lands.
The police officers’ refusal to register FIR, and their preliminary enquiry treating it as civil in nature, violated Section 18-A of the Act.
The officers were therefore liable for wilful neglect of duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, as well as under IPC Sections 166-A and 167.

2.3 Order of the Special Court (Impugned in Revision)

The 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli, held that:

In view of Section 18-A, no preliminary enquiry is permissible where a complaint discloses cognizable offences under the SC/ST Act.
The complaint clearly alleged wrongful occupation/dispossession of SC assignment lands, thereby disclosing such offences.
The course adopted by the petitioners (summons & enquiry, followed by closure as “civil”) was impermissible and prima facie amounted to neglect of statutory duty.
It directed:
- Registration of FIR on the complaint, including offences referable to Section 4 of the SC/ST Act and relevant IPC provisions; and
- Investigation by a competent officer under Rule 7 of the SC/ST Rules, other than the present DSP, because she had already pre-judged the matter as civil.

Aggrieved, the two police officers approached the High Court in revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

3. Summary of the High Court’s Judgment

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision (Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 479 of 2022), thereby affirming the Special Court’s order. The core holdings can be summarized as follows:

Application of Mind under Section 156(3) CrPC:
The Special Court’s order under Section 156(3) was not mechanical. It showed adequate judicial application of mind by engaging with the nature of the land, the complainant’s caste, Section 18-A, and Rule 7 of the SC/ST Rules.
Effect of Section 18-A SC/ST Act:
Once the complaint discloses a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act (here, dispossession/encroachment of SC assignment lands), the police are statutorily barred from conducting any preliminary enquiry and must register an FIR. Treating such a complaint as a mere “civil dispute” and refusing FIR is impermissible.
Civil Suit vs Criminal Proceedings:
The pendency of a civil suit (O.S. No. 253/2021) does not bar criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act. Civil and criminal remedies can co-exist; the “civil” aspect of a dispute cannot be used to displace a mandatory FIR regime under a special penal law.
Sanction under Section 197 CrPC:
Prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not a precondition for directing registration of an FIR or investigation against public servants. Sanction, where applicable, is considered at the stage of cognizance, not at the pre-investigation or FIR-registration stage. Further, alleged neglect of duty under the SC/ST Act is not protected as an “official duty” for the purpose of Section 197 at this preliminary stage.
Section 4 and 4(2) SC/ST Act – No Departmental Recommendation Required:
Section 4 criminalizes wilful neglect of duty by public servants. Neither Section 4 nor Section 4(2) requires a prior departmental enquiry or recommendation as a jurisdictional precondition for registration of FIR or initiation of criminal investigation.
Compliance with Priyanka Srivastava Guidelines:
The complainant satisfied the benchmarks laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.:
- There was an earlier approach to the police (CSR No. 457/2021) under Section 154(1) CrPC.
- The failure/refusal to register FIR justified recourse to Section 156(3) CrPC.
- The petition before the Special Court contained adequate material particulars and was not a casual or speculative invocation of 156(3).
The Supreme Court’s guidelines cannot be used to dilute the mandatory FIR regime in SC/ST Act cases.
Independent Investigation:
The direction that investigation be carried out by a competent officer other than the DSP who had closed the case was upheld as a measure to preserve fairness and the appearance of impartiality.

The Court thus held that there was no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the Special Court’s order warranting revisional interference.

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Statutory Context

4.1.1 The SC/ST Act and Assignments / Panchami Lands

The SC/ST Act is a special penal and remedial statute aimed at protecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities, including deprivation of property and socio-economic exclusion.

Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), and 3(1)(p) (cited conceptually in the judgment) broadly cover:

3(1)(f): Wrongful occupation or cultivation of land owned or allotted to a member of SC/ST, or interference with their rights over such land.
3(1)(g): Wrongful dispossession of an SC/ST person from their land or interference with their enjoyment of it.
3(1)(p): Wrongful dispossession or interference where the land is specifically allotted or assigned to a member of SC/ST (such as assignment/Panchami lands).

The judgment treats the lands in question as assignment / Panchami lands – historically granted to SC families on terms that significantly restrict or prohibit transfer to non-SC persons. Dispossession of SC heirs from such land by non-SC persons is squarely within the mischief of these provisions.

4.1.2 Section 18-A: No Preliminary Enquiry, Mandatory FIR

Section 18-A (inserted by the 2018 amendment) declares that:

No preliminary enquiry is required for registering an FIR where information discloses an offence under the SC/ST Act.
No approval is needed for arrest of a person accused of such offences, subject to general CrPC norms.

In this case, the High Court emphasises the first limb: once information discloses a cognizable offence under the Act, the police are bound to register an FIR and cannot conduct a preliminary civil-like enquiry to decide “whether” to register.

4.1.3 Section 4 SC/ST Act: Wilful Neglect of Duty

Section 4 penalises a public servant (including police officers) who wilfully neglects his/her duties required to be performed under the SC/ST Act. Those duties include:

Prompt registration of FIR on receiving information about an offence under the Act.
Timely and proper investigation by the prescribed rank of officer.
Ensuring protection and assistance to victims.

The allegation against the petitioners was precisely that they wilfully neglected this duty by:

Refusing to register FIR despite a complaint disclosing SC/ST offences; and
Conducting a prohibited preliminary enquiry and closing the complaint as “civil”.

4.1.4 Rule 7 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995

Rule 7 specifies that offences under the SC/ST Act must be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has been specially authorised for this purpose. The Special Court’s direction to entrust investigation to a competent officer other than the existing DSP was aimed at enforcing this requirement while avoiding conflict of interest.

4.1.5 Sections 154 and 156(3) CrPC

Section 154(1) – obligates the officer-in-charge of a police station to register an FIR on receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence.
Section 154(3) – allows the informant to approach a higher police authority (Superintendent of Police) if the local police refuse to register FIR.
Section 156(3) – empowers a Magistrate (or Special Court with such powers) to order the police to register an FIR and investigate.

4.1.6 Section 197 CrPC: Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants

Section 197 requires prior sanction of the appropriate Government before a court can take cognizance of certain offences alleged to have been committed by a public servant “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”.

The key issues here were:

Does Section 197 apply at the stage of direction to register FIR/investigate?
Is alleged wilful neglect of a mandatory statutory duty part of “official duty” protected by Section 197?

4.2 Application of Mind under Section 156(3) CrPC

The petitioners argued that the Special Court’s order was a mechanical exercise of jurisdiction under Section 156(3), lacking proper reasons, and contrary to Priyanka Srivastava.

The High Court, however, analysed the impugned order and found that it:

Expressly discussed:
- the assignment nature of the land,
- the caste status of the complainant,
- the police’s act of issuing summons and conducting enquiry without FIR,
- the statutory bar under Section 18-A on preliminary enquiry, and
- the requirement under Rule 7 for investigation by a competent officer.
Linked these aspects to the officers’ alleged neglect of duty.

Thus, the order was not a perfunctory “one-liner”, but showed adequate judicial application of mind – satisfying the requirement for a reasoned 156(3) order.

4.3 Section 18-A and the “Civil Dispute” Shield

The central substantive issue was whether, in light of Section 18-A, the police could:

Conduct a preliminary enquiry into an SC/ST complaint; and
Decline to register FIR on the ground that the matter is a “civil dispute” relating to title/possession already before a civil court.

The High Court gave a categorical answer: No.

Key elements of the Court’s reasoning:

Nature of Allegations:
The complaint alleged:
- Wrongful occupation and dispossession of an SC person from ancestral assignment lands;
- These lands are assignment/Panchami lands, allotted to his SC ancestor;
- The alleged wrongdoers are non-SC persons.
On the face of it, these allegations squarely attract Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act.
Mandatory Registration of FIR:
Post Section 18-A, no preliminary enquiry is required when such information is given. The police’s duty is to:
- Register FIR;
- Then investigate to determine the factual accuracy, legal consequences, and the interplay with civil rights.
The police cannot first conduct an informal enquiry to decide whether the complaint is “really” civil and thus avoid FIR.
Civil Suit Irrelevant at FIR Stage:
The pendency of O.S. No. 253/2021:
- Does not neutralize or prevent criminal liability under SC/ST Act;
- Does not authorise the police to refuse FIR;
- Is a matter for the trial court(s) to accommodate through appropriate conduct of parallel civil and criminal proceedings.
Civil and criminal jurisdiction can legitimately co-exist when the same set of facts gives rise to offences as well as civil wrongs.
“Civil Dispute Filter” is Unlawful in SC/ST Complaints:
The Court clearly holds that police officers cannot use a “civil dispute” label to screen out complaints disclosing SC/ST offences from the FIR net. This is particularly so when the subject matter is Panchami/assignment land of an SC family.

Consequently, the High Court characterizes the officers’ conduct as an unlawful “pre-registration enquiry and closure as civil,” directly contrary to Section 18-A.

4.4 Civil vs Criminal Remedies – Coexistence Clarified

An important doctrinal reaffirmation in the judgment is that civil proceedings do not bar criminal law where facts disclose both:

Civil wrongs (e.g., title disputes, partition, specific performance), and
Criminal offences (e.g., wrongful dispossession with caste angle, fraud, forgery, trespass, etc.).

The High Court states that:

A civil suit may determine questions of title, validity of assignment, or other civil incidents.
But the same factual substratum can simultaneously support criminal offences, especially under a special protective statute like the SC/ST Act.
Calling it a “civil dispute” cannot justify refusal to implement a mandatory statutory duty under the SC/ST Act.

This reinforces a well-accepted principle: “Civil complexion” does not immunize criminal conduct, and certainly not in a special statute designed to counter caste-based oppression.

4.5 Section 197 CrPC – Sanction Not Required at FIR/Investigation Stage

The petitioners argued that:

At least the DSP (being above the rank of Inspector) was protected by Section 197 CrPC.
Therefore, without prior sanction, no FIR could have been directed against them.

The High Court rejected this contention on two distinct grounds:

Stage of Proceedings:
Section 197 comes into play at the stage of the court taking cognizance of the offence, not at the stage of:
- Directing FIR registration under Section 156(3); or
- Commencing investigation.
A direction under Section 156(3) is pre-cognizance. Therefore, no sanction was required at this stage.
Nature of Alleged Act – Not Protected “Official Duty”:
The alleged conduct is neglect of a clear statutory duty to register FIR in SC/ST complaints. This is not an act done “in the discharge of official duty”; rather, it is an omission contrary to official duty. Such conduct does not fall within the protective ambit of Section 197 for the purpose of shielding the officer from even an investigation.

Thus, the Court draws an important line: Section 197 CrPC cannot be used as a preliminary shield to avoid investigation into alleged wilful neglect of duty under the SC/ST Act.

4.6 Section 4 & 4(2) SC/ST Act – No Need for Departmental Recommendation

The petitioners contended that under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act, a departmental enquiry/recommendation is a necessary precondition before criminal proceedings can be initiated against public servants for wilful neglect of duty.

The High Court rejected this argument, holding that:

The statute does not condition the registration of an FIR or the commencement of investigation on any prior departmental finding.
Departmental proceedings are a matter of service discipline, distinct from the criminal process.
They may proceed in parallel but do not create a jurisdictional barrier to the operation of criminal law.

In other words:

Departmental recommendation is not a sine qua non for setting criminal law in motion under Section 4 SC/ST Act.

This is a crucial clarification because it prevents a situation where internal administrative processes could be used to delay or derail criminal accountability for neglect of duty in sensitive SC/ST cases.

4.7 Compliance with Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.

The petitioners invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, which laid down safeguards for invoking Section 156(3) CrPC, including:

Filing of a sworn affidavit by the complainant to discourage frivolous or malafide accusations;
Prior resort to Sections 154(1) and 154(3), i.e., first approaching the police and the higher police officer before directly invoking Section 156(3);
The Magistrate must indicate application of mind and not mechanically direct FIRs.

The High Court analysed the factual record and held:

The complainant had already approached the police, resulting in CSR No. 457/2021, satisfying Section 154(1).
The failure to register an FIR and the subsequent closure as “civil” justified recourse to Section 156(3).
The Special Court’s order was reasoned and reflective of application of mind, not mechanical.

Critically, the Court added that the purpose of Priyanka Srivastava is to prevent misuse of Section 156(3), not to provide:

a tool for shutting out genuine complaints under a special protective statute; or
a means to override a mandatory FIR regime like that of Section 18-A SC/ST Act.

Thus, in SC/ST matters where the complaint plainly discloses cognizable offences, Priyanka Srivastava must be applied in a manner that is consistent with, not destructive of, the remedial aims of the SC/ST Act.

4.8 Direction for Independent Investigation

The Special Court’s direction that:

The complaint be forwarded to Puthanatham Police Station for FIR registration; and
Investigation be conducted by a competent officer other than the present DSP (who had already closed the matter as civil)

was upheld by the High Court.

The Court reasoned that:

The existing DSP had pre-judged the matter as purely civil, hence continuing investigation under her would compromise the perception (and possibly the reality) of impartiality.
Assigning a **different competent officer** under Rule 7 fulfils both:
- the statutory requirement of the rank of investigating officer, and
- the principle of fair investigation.

This aspect strengthens procedural fairness, particularly vital when police officers themselves are alleged to have neglected their duties.

5. Impact and Significance

5.1 Reinforcement of Mandatory FIR Regime in SC/ST Complaints

The judgment strongly reaffirms that:

In SC/ST land dispossession cases, especially involving assignment/Panchami lands, police must immediately register FIR when a complaint discloses cognizable offences.
No preliminary enquiry is permissible under Section 18-A.
Invoking the “civil nature” of disputes is not a lawful ground to avoid FIR.

For future cases, this:

Closes a frequently used loophole where police avoid registering sensitive SC/ST cases by branding them as civil disputes.
Sets a clear standard for police conduct and for Special Courts reviewing such conduct under Section 156(3).

5.2 Heightened Accountability of Police under Section 4 SC/ST Act

By upholding the direction to register FIR under Section 4 (wilful neglect of duty) against police officers, the judgment:

Signals that failures to comply with Section 18-A and related obligations can themselves be criminally prosecuted.
Discourages “gate-keeping” by the police that undermines the protective framework of the Act.
Clarifies that this accountability does not depend on internal departmental processes or prior sanctions at the FIR stage.

5.3 Clarification on Section 197 CrPC and Departmental Enquiry

The ruling clarifies, in practical terms:

Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not needed for:
- Registering an FIR;
- Ordering or starting an investigation under Section 156(3).
Departmental enquiries or recommendations are administrative and do not create jurisdictional preconditions for criminal proceedings under Section 4 SC/ST Act.

This removes procedural obstacles that might otherwise be misused to delay or frustrate the criminal process in SC/ST cases involving official neglect.

5.4 Strengthening Protection of Panchami / Assignment Lands

While the judgment does not elaborate a detailed doctrine of Panchami lands, its reasoning clearly indicates that:

Allegations of non-SC persons acquiring or occupying assignment/Panchami lands of SC families raise a strong presumption of possible violation of Sections 3(1)(f), (g), (p) SC/ST Act.
Such allegations must be taken seriously at the FIR stage and cannot be sidelined as mere civil disputes.

This has significant implications in states like Tamil Nadu, where historical injustices over assignment lands and Panchami lands have been widely documented.

5.5 Calibration of Priyanka Srivastava in SC/ST Context

The judgment illustrates that:

Priyanka Srivastava’s safeguards are procedural; they guard against frivolous use of 156(3), not genuine complaints.
When:
- there is prior approach to the police, and
- a clear failure to register FIR in a serious SC/ST matter,
Magistrates / Special Courts are justified in directing FIR registration under Section 156(3), provided they record reasons.
These guidelines must be read \*harmoniously\* with the SC/ST Act’s object and its mandatory FIR regime, not as a tool to dilute its operation.

6. Complex Concepts Simplified

6.1 Key Legal Terms Explained

FIR (First Information Report):
The first formal record made by police upon receiving information about a cognizable offence. Registration of FIR sets the criminal investigation machinery in motion.
CSR (Community Service Register):
A register in which non-cognizable or preliminary entries are made. A CSR entry is not the same as an FIR and does not automatically lead to a full criminal investigation.
Section 156(3) CrPC:
A provision allowing a Magistrate (or Special Court with such powers) to direct the police to register an FIR and investigate, when the police have failed or refused to do so on a complaint.
Section 18-A SC/ST Act:
A provision which states that the police shall not conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering FIR when information discloses an offence under the SC/ST Act. It aims to prevent delays and obstruction in SC/ST cases.
Wilful Neglect of Duty (Section 4 SC/ST Act):
When a public servant, despite being aware of their legal obligations under the Act (such as prompt registration of FIR), deliberately fails or refuses to perform those duties. This neglect is treated as a punishable offence.
Panchami / Assignment Lands:
Lands assigned, typically by the State, to members of Scheduled Castes, often with severe restrictions on transfer to non-SC persons. They are intended to secure the land rights and livelihood of historically disadvantaged communities.
Section 197 CrPC – Sanction:
A requirement that courts must obtain prior approval from the competent government before taking cognizance of certain offences alleged to be committed by public servants in the course of their official duties. It does not apply at the stage of FIR registration or investigation.
Application of Mind (in 156(3) orders):
The Magistrate/Special Court must show, in the order itself, that it has considered the allegations and materials, and formed a reasoned view that a cognizable offence appears to have been committed and that police investigation is warranted.

7. Conclusion

The decision in Suriya v. Gandhi is a clear and carefully reasoned reaffirmation of the protective architecture of the SC/ST Act, especially in the sensitive area of land dispossession involving assignment/Panchami lands.

Key takeaways include:

When a complaint by an SC/ST member prima facie discloses offences under the SC/ST Act, particularly involving dispossession from assignment lands, the police are mandated by Section 18-A to:
- Register an FIR without preliminary enquiry; and
- Proceed to investigation.
Labeling such complaints as “civil disputes” at the threshold is legally impermissible and may itself amount to wilful neglect of duty under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.
Sanction under Section 197 CrPC and departmental recommendations under Section 4(2) SC/ST Act:
- Are not prerequisites for FIR registration or initiation of investigation against public servants; and
- Cannot be used to delay or prevent criminal accountability for neglect of duty.
Priyanka Srivastava is to be applied as a safeguard against frivolous use of Section 156(3), but not in a way that undermines the remedial and mandatory FIR regime of the SC/ST Act.
Directing an independent investigation by a competent officer, where the existing officer has already pre-judged the matter, is a legitimate and necessary measure to preserve fairness and public confidence.

In the broader legal context, this judgment strengthens the message that the SC/ST Act is not merely symbolic: its procedural mandates (like Section 18-A) and accountability mechanisms (like Section 4) must be taken seriously by law enforcement. It warns against the persistent practice of insulating sensitive caste-based land disputes from criminal scrutiny under a “civil dispute” veneer, and lays down a robust precedent ensuring that the promise of the SC/ST Act is translated into effective protection on the ground.