Initial Magistrate proceedings do not vitiate SC/ST Act proceedings absent prejudice or failure of justice.

The complainant, a member of the Dom Scheduled Caste community, alleged that the appellants assaulted and threatened him and his wife, and used caste-related abuses during a village dispute on 11 June 2016.

The complaint was first taken up by an ACJM, who recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.

After the complaint was transferred to the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, that court summoned the appellants for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellants challenged the summoning order, principally arguing that the Magistrate’s initial proceedings were contrary to Sections 2(bd) and 14 of the SC/ST Act.

Whether the ACJM’s initial cognizance and recording of statements, followed by transfer of the complaint to the Special Judge, invalidated the subsequent summoning order under the SC/ST Act.

Whether the complaint and preliminary statements disclosed sufficient prima facie material to summon the appellants for the alleged offences.

Section 14 of the SC/ST Act empowers the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court to take direct cognizance of offences under the Act; that power does not, by itself, make proceedings following a Magistrate’s cognizance void.

In Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, (2022) 15 SCC 228, the Supreme Court held that proceedings are not automatically vitiated merely because a Magistrate takes cognizance and the case thereafter proceeds before the Special Court; prejudice or failure of justice must be established.

Sections 460 and 461 CrPC distinguish specified irregular acts that do not invalidate proceedings from acts expressly rendered void; Section 460(e) protects, subject to its conditions, a Magistrate’s erroneous but good-faith cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) or (b).

At the summoning stage, the court determines whether the material provides a prima facie basis for proceedings, not whether guilt is proved or the evidence will ultimately secure conviction.

The Special Judge—not the ACJM—passed the challenged summoning order after the complaint was transferred and the material was considered.

The appellants showed neither that the Special Judge lacked statutory competence nor that the earlier proceedings caused prejudice or a failure of justice; the court therefore treated the objection as insufficient to invalidate the subsequent proceedings, applying Shantaben and the relevant CrPC provisions.

On the merits, the complaint and recorded statements made specific allegations of assault, caste-related abuse and threats, which supplied a prima facie basis for summoning.

The court declined to assess credibility or conduct a mini-trial at that stage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were directed, if not already on bail, to appear and apply for regular bail within two weeks; the trial court was directed to decide any such application expeditiously, preferably the same day.