Delays in filing a final report under SC/ST Act do not invalidate proceedings unless they cause prejudice; the procedural timeliness is not an absolute ground for discharge.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Accused No.10 has filed the criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.167 of 2026 under section 14-A (1) of SC and ST (POA) Act, challenging the dismissal of discharge petition vide impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.294 of 2025 in S.C.No. 62 of 2020 on the file of Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Thoothukudi, dated 12.01.2026.

2. According to the prosecution, deceased P.K.Sivakumar was one of the brother of the defacto complainant and he had another brother namely, P.K.Muthukumar. Earlier, on 21.08.2019, his brother, namely, P.K.Sivakumar was murdered by a mob opposite to the District Court campus in the presence of the deceased P.K.Muthkumar and defacto complainant. Hence, complaint was made and on receipt of the complaint, Thoothukudi South Police officials registered the case in Crime No.533 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 302, 506(2), 120–B, 34, 109 of IPC r/w. Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST(POA) Act. Thereafter final report was filed against the petitioner and other 20 accused persons and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.62 of 2020.

3.Pending the trial, in the said case deceased P.K.Muthukumar and another brother namely, the second respondent Ramkumar were persistently taking steps to intervene in the bail application filed by the all the accused. The same infuriated and provoked the appellant herein to eliminate the deceased Muthukumar as he was hurdle to them for getting bail. Therefore, appellant and other accused in the earlier case conspired to commit murder of said Muthukumar and infurtherence of the conspiracy on 22.02.2023 at 2.15 p.m. Accused No.1 in the case wearing helmet along with identifiable four persons wielding aruval, lathi trespassed into the pawn shop owned by the deceased Muthukumar and another identifiable person accused came in a motor cycle and they fled away from the scene of the occurrence. Thereafter, FIR was registered by the SIPCOT Police Station in Crime No.48 of 2023 upon receipt of the complaint from the second respondent, namely, defacto complainant. They registered the case for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302, and 109 IPC r/w. Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The investigating officer conducted investigation and filed the final report against the appellant and other accused on 14.11.2019 totally 21 accused persons. The appellant and the other accused persons had filed discharge petition in Cr.M.P.No.293 of 2025 to discharge them in S.C.No.62 of 2020 on the ground that the final report was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police without jurisdiction and also beyond sixty days period mentioned in the Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 as amended in the year 2016 (herein after called as “Rules”). The learned trial Judge vide impugned order dated 12.01.2026 dismissed the same. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has preferred the above Criminal Appeal before this court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there has been violation of Rule 7(2) and 7(2-A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules , 2016, as the Investigating Officer has filed the final report beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. According to the learned counsel, once the final report is filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under the special enactment, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of such a defective and belated final report. Therefore, the appellant/petitioners filed a discharge