Courts Cannot Conduct a Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage—Delhi High Court Upholds Summoning in SC/ST Act, IPC Case Involving Police Officer

“Allegations Disclose Prima Facie Offences—Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC Cannot Be Used to Pre-Empt Trial”, Delhi High Court, in a reportable judgment delivered by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, dismissed three connected criminal appeals filed by S.K. Singh (a senior Delhi Police officer), his wife Manju, and driver Sandeep Dahiya, seeking quashing of FIR No. 351/2021 and the order taking cognizance dated 25.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, in a case involving allegations under various sections of the IPC and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

While declining to interfere, the Court reaffirmed the settled position of law that at the stage of cognizance, the Magistrate is only required to prima facie see whether an offence is made out, and not to weigh evidence or evaluate contradictions. The Court emphasized that:

“The High Court is not expected to delve into the merits of the case or conduct a roving enquiry under the guise of Section 482 CrPC. The stage of cognizance is not the forum to assess the veracity or sufficiency of evidence.”

“Even if Allegations Are Made Belatedly, They Cannot Be Brushed Aside Without Trial”

The FIR, filed by the daughter of ASI Satpal Singh—who was a neighbour of appellant S.K. Singh—alleged criminal intimidation, caste-based abuses, assault, and obstruction of way, including threats to life and acts of sexual intimidation. While the initial FIR mentioned basic allegations, subsequent Section 164 CrPC statements and supplementary complaints detailed casteist abuses, threats of rape and murder, and repeated derogatory references to the complainant's caste.

The appellants argued that these allegations were improved versions, made belatedly to implicate them falsely, and urged that they should be quashed at threshold. The Court rejected the plea, holding that:

“Alleged improvements, contradictions, and gaps in witness statements are matters for trial. At the stage of cognizance, the Court cannot pre-judge the evidentiary weight of such material.”

Relying on Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, (2019) 6 SCC 107, and Abhishek v. State of M.P., the Court clarified: “Whether contradictions or inconsistencies exist is an issue for appreciation during trial. The High Court has no jurisdiction to sift through the material to test its veracity under Section 482.”

“Presence of Labourers and Neighbours Suggests Offence Occurred in Public View—Applicability of SC/ST Act to Be Examined at Trial”

While the defence strongly argued that no public person was cited as a witness and caste identity was not within the knowledge of the accused, the Court held that Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie attracted.

The judgment observed: “Whether the caste-based insults occurred in ‘public view’ is a mixed question of fact and law. The presence of labourers, mobile videos, and proximity of neighbours are sufficient to warrant trial. The existence of intention and knowledge under Section 3(1) are not matters to be decided at this stage.”

Rejecting the plea that the appellants could not have known the caste of the complainant, the Court cited Section 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act, which raise a presumption of such knowledge when parties are known to each other.

“Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not Offender—Magistrate Need Not Provide Detailed Reasoning”

The Court rejected the argument that the order of cognizance lacked reasoning, relying on State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, and Nupur Talwar v. CBI, to reiterate that: “The Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons when taking cognizance on a police report. The standard is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not whether conviction is likely.”

It further noted:

“At the stage of cognizance, the Court is not expected to apply the test of presumption, but only to examine if any offence is made out.”

“Existence of Cross FIR Does Not Weaken Prima Facie Case—Rather, It Reinforces Need for Full Trial”

The defence relied on a cross FIR (No. 352/2021) lodged by appellant Manju to claim that the case was retaliatory and part of a neighbourhood dispute over construction and parking issues. The Court, however, found no merit in this line of argument, observing that:

“The presence of a counter-case shows that rival versions exist, which require full-fledged adjudication. This cannot be the sole basis to quash proceedings.”

“Alleged Official Duty Does Not Grant Immunity Without Sanction—But Nexus Must Be Tried in Court”

Regarding the plea for protection under Section 197 CrPC and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, the Court clarified that: “Whether an act was done in discharge of official duty is a mixed question of fact and law. It cannot be determined at the threshold. Even assuming the appellant was acting in his official capacity, such protection requires trial court assessment.”

This is particularly significant since S.K. Singh was a serving DCP (Communication) at the time of the alleged incident, and claimed he acted to prevent illegal construction by the complainant’s family.

“Offences Like 308 IPC Cannot Be Thrown Out Merely Because Injury Was ‘Simple’—Intention Has to Be Proved at Trial”

The appellants argued that the offence under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide) was not made out because the injury was only 1 cm near the eyebrow—a “simple injury” as per MLC.

Rejecting this argument, the Court held: “Whether Section 308 is attracted depends on intention, knowledge, and surrounding circumstances. This is not a question to be answered under Section 482.”

The Court also dismissed arguments on non-applicability of Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), Section 509 IPC (outraging modesty by words/gesture), and Section 354 IPC (assault or use of force to outrage modesty), holding that all such objections are matters of defence, not quashing.

High Court Dismisses Appeals, Upholds Cognizance

Concluding the judgment, the High Court found that: “There is no infirmity in the order taking cognizance and no grounds for quashing the FIR are made out. The appeals are dismissed along with pending applications.”

The Court left it open for the accused to raise all defences at the stage of charge, and clarified that the trial court shall consider the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.

Date of Decision: 20 December 2025