B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, SUJATA V.MANOHAR
State Of M. P. – Appellant
Versus
RAM KISHNA BALOTHIA – Respondent
The provided legal document primarily discusses the constitutional validity of provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and related procedural aspects, especially regarding anticipatory bail and the specific provisions of the Act. It does not directly address the accountability of a public servant to register a First Information Report (FIR).
However, based on general legal principles and constitutional mandates, a public servant, especially those in law enforcement, has a constitutional and legal obligation to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is reported to them. Under the constitutional framework, particularly Articles 14 and 21, every individual has the right to equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to seek legal remedy and justice. The obligation to register an FIR is also reinforced by statutory provisions and directives that mandate police authorities to register FIRs upon receiving information about cognizable offences.
Failure of a public servant or police officer to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is reported can be challenged as a violation of constitutional rights and statutory duties. Such inaction can be subject to judicial review and appropriate legal remedies, including directions from courts to the authorities to perform their statutory functions.
In summary, a public servant, especially in law enforcement, is accountable under the law to register an FIR when presented with credible information regarding a cognizable offence, ensuring the protection of victims' rights and the enforcement of the rule of law.
JUDGMENT
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.- Special leave granted.
2. These appeals by special leave have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and another against the judgment and order dated 25-3-1994 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which is the common judgment governing all these appeals. In the petitions which were filed by the respondents here, before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution, the respondents had challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court, while negativing this challenge in respect of some of the sections of the said Act has, however, held that Section 18 of the said Act is unconstitutional since it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The present appeals have been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh to challenge the finding of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in respect of Section 18 of the said Act.
3. Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as follows:
"Section 438 of the Code not to apply to persons committing an offence under the Act.- Nothing in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.