Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Remanding DSP In SC/ST Act Case, Directs Enquiry Into Alleged Misuse Of Power By Trial Court Judge

Calling the trial court judge's order "unwarranted", Justice N Satish Kumar directed the high court's Registrar (Vigilance) to conduct an enquiry into allegations of bias and misuse of power by the trial court judge. The high court opined that such a probe was necessary to uncover the truth.

“In such view of the matter, the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court, Madras, is directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the specific allegations made in the affidavits filed in both the Criminal Original Petitions with regard to the motive, bias and misuse of power and conversations between the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and the Police officials after filing of the complaints dated 25.07.2025 till passing of the last order by the learned Judge. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order, along with all the case papers, to the Registrar (Vigilance). The Registrar (Vigilance) shall conduct an enquiry in this regard and file a report before this Court on 23.09.2025 for taking further action,” the court said.

The court was hearing pleas filed against two suo motu orders passed by the District Judge, one on 4th September externing some accused and another order passed on 8th September, remanding Mr.M.Sankar Ganesh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.

Background

Two complaints were filed before the Walajabad Police Station by one T Sivakumar and by one Parvathi. The complaints were based on altercations that took place between the two groups, one consisting of the judge's PSO and the other of Parvathi. The allegation was that when Parvathi's husband and others came to the bakery owned by the PSO's father-in-law, there arose some altercation regarding the alleged quality of the product.

Since both the parties agreed to settle the matter amicably, the complaints were closed on the same day.

The petitioners alleged that due to personal animosity with the PSO, the judge had directed the Inspector to register an FIR based on the closed complaint. When the judge threatened to take action if no FIR was filed, two FIRs were registered against both the parties. The FIR against Parvathi's husband and others was registered for offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3) BNS and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. The FIR against the PSO and his family members was filed under offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2) of BNS, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Following this, the judge passed the first suo motu order under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act for externment of the accused persons, including the PSO, his father-in-law and others. The judge also called upon the DSP to enquire about the implementation of the order. On appearance, the DSP was made to wait from morning till evening and the second suo motu order was passed remanding him to judicial custody. The DSP was then taken to the sub-jail by the court staff in the official car of the judge.

The petitioners contended that both the orders were passed by the judge by misusing his powers and position. Contenting that the orders were nothing but an abuse of process of court, the petitioners asked to set aside the orders.

The court noted that before passing the order of externment under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act there must be either a complaint or a Police report. In the present case, the court noted that except for the FIR, there were no other police reports.

The court observed that the order of externment is to be passed when there is a real atrocity committed on the members belonging to the SC/ST communities. In the present case, the court noted that the case was based on mere altercations and it might not have been possible for the persons to know the caste of the opposite party.

“Though the Courts have been vested with powers under SC/ST Act for passing orders of externment, this Court is of the view that such externment orders are required only when there is a real atrocity committed on the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, provided such persons or accused are likely to commit an offence under Chapter-II of the SC/ST Act in any area included in scheduled areas or tribal areas as referred to in Article 244 of Constitution of India or any area identified under the provisions of Sub-Clause (vii) of Clause (2) of Section 21 of SC/ST Act,” the court observed.

“However, in the given case, on a careful perusal of the very complaints given by both sides, it is clear that there were mere altercations between the parties while purchasing some eatables in the Bakery and naturally, one side may not even know what is the caste of the other side,” the court further noted.

With respect to the order remanding the DSP, the court noted that arrest was the discretion of the judge and a court could not direct that a particular person be arrested. The court also noted that unless there was a definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding with regard to the negligent act under the SC/ST Act, the court could not automatically initiate action against a public servant as a matter of right.

The court thus noted that merely because the DSP or other police officers had not implemented the order of the court, it could not be said that they had committed an offence under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act.

"Therefore, merely because the Deputy Superintendent of Police or other Police officials have not immediately implemented some directions issued by the learned Judge in the name of externment, it cannot be said that the Deputy Superintendent of Police or the other Police officials have committed an offence under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Act. Considering the said aspect, the suo motu order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, remanding the Deputy Superintendent of Police, is also not warranted". 

Thus, the court set aside both the orders and ordered an enquiry against the trial court judge.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.Sharath Chandran for Mr.R.Harikrishnan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Lokeshwaran Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 302

Case No: Crl.O.P.Nos.24853 & 24866 of 2025