SC/ST Act monitoring committees cannot order further investigation or direct filing of a chargesheet, Himachal Pradesh High Court rules

On 10 October 2021, during elections for the managing committee of “Aprajita”, an altercation allegedly occurred between petitioner No. 1, its President, and another individual. The petitioners were alleged to have abused respondent No. 2 and used caste-related remarks against him. FIR No. 222 of 2021 was registered at Police Station Ghumarwin under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

After investigation, the police submitted a closure report, which was initially concurred in by the District-Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee constituted under Rule 17 of the 1995 Rules. On the complainant’s objections, the Sessions Court ordered further investigation. The police again found no concrete evidence and proposed a closure report; however, before placing it before the Court, the Committee directed the police to file a challan. The police thereafter recorded the statements of two additional witnesses and filed a charge-sheet under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and Section 506 IPC. The Sessions Court took cognizance and framed charges. The petitioners invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings

Whether the District-Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee constituted under Rule 17 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, had the power to direct the investigating agency to file a challan when the police had proposed a closure report

Whether the investigating agency could undertake further investigation merely on the Committee’s directions, or was required to place the closure report before the competent Court for appropriate orders

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., which permits the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Relying on State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Vineet Kumar v. State of U.P., and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where continuation would amount to abuse of process, particularly when the prosecution is manifestly unsustainable or malicious

Rule 7 of the 1995 Rules prescribes the rank and duties of the investigating officer and requires filing of the charge-sheet before the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court. Rule 17 establishes the District-Level Vigilance and Monitoring Committee to review implementation of the Act, relief and rehabilitation, prosecution of cases, and the functioning of responsible officers/agencies; it does not confer power to direct or control investigation. Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act concerns the rights and entitlements of victims and witnesses, including protection, notice, participation, information, relief and legal assistance, but does not authorise the Committee to interfere with investigation. The Court also relied on Paliniswamy Veeraja v. State of Karnataka, which recognised that further investigation requires judicial control and that investigation cannot continue indefinitely without lawful authority or adequate justification

The Court construed Rules 7 and 17 of the 1995 Rules together with Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and held that the Committee’s role was supervisory and advisory, limited to reviewing the progress of prosecution and ensuring victims’ statutory entitlements; it could not order further investigation or compel the filing of a challan

Once the Sessions Court had ordered further investigation pursuant to the complainant’s objections, the police were required to complete that investigation and place the resultant closure report before the competent Court. The Committee had no authority to intervene while the matter remained within the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the police had independently concluded on two occasions that the allegations were unsupported and had proposed closure both times. The subsequent recording of two additional statements and filing of the challan occurred only after the Committee’s unauthorised direction, indicating that the charge-sheet was founded on an invalid investigative process. In these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS

The petition was allowed; FIR No. 222 of 2021 and the consequential Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2024 were quashed and set aside. The petitioners were acquitted of the charges framed against them, and all pending applications were disposed of