State’s Role is to Prosecute Offenders, Not Shield Them: HP High Court Rejects Plea Against Probe Order in SC/ST Atrocity Case

Shimla- The Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered a significant ruling on July 31, dismissing the state government's criminal revision petition challenging a trial court order that directed an investigation into alleged atrocities against a Scheduled Caste woman.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a Dalit woman against two police officials under Sections 332(c), 126(2), 115(2), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, 2023)  and Sections 3 & 4 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Special Judge in Kangra had ordered the SHO of Rehan Police Station to investigate the matter, prompting the state to appeal the decision before the High Court.

In a key observation, the High Court remarked, "Crimes primarily involve harm to the individuals or to their property, but, the crimes are considered offence against the State, because, they breach the public order and the established legal system. The State, acting on behalf of the society, prosecutes the violators to maintain peace and security. Administration of justice is one of the essential functions of the State and law and order within the State is to be maintained through the administration of justice and citizens are made to realize the existence and importance of the State."

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Virender Singh observed, "....crime is always committed against the State and not against a particular person. The person, against whom, the offence is committed, is a victim, who, suffers at the hands of the offenders and the State prosecutes against such offenders. Even, Article 14 of the Constitution of India is based upon the golden principle that every person is entitled to equality before law or the equal protection of the laws. The State cannot discriminate between the Government employees and ordinary citizens. State cannot protect a person against whom an offence has been alleged and the competent Court of law has passed the direction to the competent authority to inquire into the matter."

The bench noted that since the trial court's order was directed against individual accused persons and not the state administration, the government had no locus standi to challenge it. The judgment clarified that "the State cannot be said to be an 'aggrieved person' to assail the order passed by the trial court," marking a clear boundary for state intervention in criminal matters.

The court also addressed the state's argument that it could represent its employees under a 1971 Home Department notification. Justice Singh rejected this contention, observing that "merely because the proposed accused persons are government servants will not give authority to the State to assail the order." The judgment reinforced constitutional principles by stating that "the State cannot discriminate between government employees and ordinary citizens under Article 14 of the Constitution." This observation assumes particular significance in cases involving allegations against public officials, ensuring that all citizens remain equal before the law regardless of their official positions.

While dismissing the state's petition, the court left the door open for the accused individuals to challenge the trial court's order on their own behalf. The judgment clarified that "the rejection of this Criminal Revision does not preclude the accused from assailing the order, if so advised," maintaining the legal rights of the individuals while curtailing inappropriate state intervention. This nuanced approach balanced the need for fair investigation in SC/ST atrocity cases with the protection of individual legal rights.

The ruling carries important implications for the interpretation of newly enacted criminal laws (BNSS and BNS) and reinforces judicial independence in directing impartial probes, particularly in sensitive cases involving marginalized communities. By limiting the state's ability to interfere in criminal proceedings involving its employees, the judgment strengthens accountability mechanisms and upholds the principle that the state's primary role in criminal justice is prosecution, not protection of alleged offenders.

Legal experts view this as a significant precedent that could influence similar cases across the country, particularly those involving allegations against public officials under special legislation like the SC/ST Act.