Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"The legal position stands authoritatively settled that where the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, a preliminary inquiry is not required before registration of the FIR or invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory condition precedent for invoking the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

A bench of Justice Subhas Mehla observed that once allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigating agency is not bound to conduct a preliminary inquiry, as such a requirement would place the victims at a procedural disadvantage.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash an FIR registered in 2018 for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC. The case arose from a dispute during a village Panchayat where the petitioners allegedly hurled caste-based remarks and assaulted the complainants with bricks. During the investigation, the police added Section 3 of the SC/ST Act to the FIR, which became the primary point of legal challenge.

The primary question before the court was whether the subsequent invocation of the SC/ST Act during the investigation was rendered illegal solely because no preliminary inquiry preceded the addition of the offence. The court also examined whether the directions regarding preliminary inquiries issued by the Supreme Court in earlier precedents remained operative in light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments.

Challenge To Addition Of SC/ST Act Provisions

The petitioners primarily argued that the invocation of the SC/ST Act was legally unsustainable because it was incorporated two days after the FIR without a mandatory preliminary inquiry. They placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018), which had originally issued directions for such inquiries to prevent the misuse of the Act.

Supreme Court's Directions In Mahajan Case Recalled

The Court noted that the principal plank of the petitioners' challenge rested on a legal position that no longer holds the field. Justice Mehla pointed out that the directions issued in the Mahajan case were reconsidered and overruled by the Supreme Court in the review petition titled Union of India v. State of Maharashtra (2019). The High Court emphasized that the requirement of a preliminary inquiry was found to be "impermissible" by the Apex Court.

Requirement Of Preliminary Inquiry Held Impermissible

The bench observed that neither the Cr.P.C. nor the SC/ST Act contemplates a preliminary inquiry where allegations disclose a cognizable offence. Quoting the Supreme Court's review judgment, the Court noted that such a direction puts members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a disadvantageous position compared to complainants from other categories, for whom no such preliminary investigation is necessary.

"The statutory scheme of the SC/ST Act does not envisage a preliminary inquiry as a condition precedent for initiating action thereunder. No independent or mandatory preliminary inquiry is contemplated merely because the provisions of the SC/ST Act are sought to be invoked."

Retrospective Operation Of Judicial Decisions

Addressing the timing of the FIR, the Court clarified the principle governing judicial precedents. It held that when a Court corrects an earlier understanding of the law, it does not enact a new rule but merely declares what the law has always been. Citing Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008), the bench remarked that judicial decisions operate retrospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.

Court Explains Retrospective Nature Of Constitutional Rulings

The Court further referred to the recent decision in Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal (2025), reaffirming that a judgment of a Constitutional Court is always retrospective unless it specifically states it will operate prospectively. Therefore, the review judgment in the Union of India case governed the present proceedings, even though the FIR was registered prior to that pronouncement.

"The review judgment in Union of India v. State of Maharashtra did not lay down a new proposition of law; rather, it authoritatively declared the correct legal position governing the requirement of a preliminary inquiry under the SC/ST Act."

No Grounds For Quashing FIR Under Section 482 CrPC

The Court concluded that since the very premise of the petitioners' challenge—the lack of a preliminary inquiry—no longer survived in law, there was no illegality in the action of the investigating agency. It was further noted that disputed questions of fact regarding the alleged assault and the sequence of events could not be adjudicated in a summary manner under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the addition of SC/ST Act provisions during investigation without a preliminary inquiry is valid if the material collected discloses a cognizable offence. The ruling reinforces the legislative intent of the 2018 amendments and subsequent judicial clarifications that seek to remove procedural hurdles in the prosecution of atrocities against protected communities.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026