Kerala HC: Special Courts Must Pass Reasoned Orders When Taking Cognizance in SC/ST Act Cases [Read Judgment]

Kerala: The Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by a Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, holding that courts must provide adequate reasoning when taking cognizance of offences under the Act, particularly when doing so contrary to a refer report filed by the Investigating Officer.

Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Nisha V. Nair, a Junior Public Health Nurse Grade-I at the Community Health Centre, Kattakada, challenging the order dated November 18, 2024, passed by the Special Court, Nedumangad.

The case originated from a private complaint dated March 17, 2022, filed by Sasidharan D.K., a Health Inspector, which was forwarded to the police for investigation. Subsequently, an FIR in Crime No. 251/2022 of Kattakada Police Station was registered. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report on June 30, 2022, requesting the Special Court to drop the proceedings, commonly known as a “Further Action Dropped” (FAD) report.

Upon receiving notice of the refer report, the complainant filed a protest complaint, which was considered by the Special Judge. The impugned order dated November 18, 2024, simply stated:

“Heard. Perused records and evidence. Prima facie case made out to proceed against the accused (No.1) for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.”

Counsel for the appellant contended that the order was passed without any reasoning for taking cognizance and without discussing or deciding upon the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer. It was argued that the cryptic nature of the order warranted interference.

Counsel for the complainant (3rd respondent) countered that although the order was not exhaustive, it reflected the prima facie satisfaction of the court regarding the commission of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, based on the statements of five witnesses recorded by the court.

The learned Public Prosecutor supported the complainant’s position, opposing interference with the order.

The court then observed that the impugned order suffered from serious deficiencies. It noted that the order did not contain any discussion of the materials referred to by the Special Judge in finding a prima facie commission of offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.

Critically, the court found that the order did not indicate whether the refer report (FAD) filed by the Investigating Officer was accepted or rejected by the Special Judge.

“It is well-settled law that when a final report seeking to drop proceedings is filed by the Investigating Officer after investigation, the court has a duty to verify the report with a view to either accept or reject the same, or to order further investigation, as the case may be,” the court held.

Additionally, the court emphasized that when serious offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act are alleged, the Special Court must pass a reasoned order justifying the taking of cognizance, and that a cryptic order would not suffice. The court observed:

“Annexure A16 order is also a blanket and cryptic order without reasons.”

Addressing an additional prayer regarding the constitutionality of the second proviso to Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, the court noted that the issue had already been settled. Referring to Noushad V.T.K. v. State of Kerala [2023 (6) KHC 172], the court acknowledged that a Single Judge, following the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court, had declared Section 14A(3) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, unconstitutional.

The court affirmed that curtailing the right of appeal beyond the period of limitation without providing for condonation of delay on sufficient cause violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court also addressed the procedural aspect concerning the applicability of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) vis-à-vis the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Referring to CBI v. Ramesh Chander Diwan [2025 KHC 6370], Justice Badharudeen noted that proceedings instituted prior to the introduction of BNSS are to be continued under the repealed law, i.e., CrPC.

Since the protest complaint in this case was filed in 2022, the court held that the Special Court is bound to follow the provisions of the CrPC.

Finding that the impugned order suffered from illegality and lacked proper reasoning, the court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order dated November 18, 2024. The matter was remanded to the Special Court with directions to consider the protest complaint afresh and pass a speaking order justifying the cognizance or otherwise, in accordance with the CrPC.

The court directed the 3rd respondent (complainant) to appear before the Special Court either in person or through counsel on February 27, 2026, and instructed the Registry to forward a copy of the judgment to the Special Court forthwith.

Case Title: Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Crl.A No. 2285 of 2025)

[Read Judgment]