JUDGMENT

SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Raghib Ali, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2; Sri Shyam Narayan Rai, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 6.10.2018 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut in Criminal Misc. No.203 of 2018 (Smt. Saroj vs. Station House Officer Sandeep Kumar Singh and 15 others), arising out of Case Crime No.530 of 2017, under Sections 323, 332, 351, 354B, 376B, 392, 406, 499, 504, 506, 509, 120B IPC and Sections 3(2)(1), 7, 3(XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Kharkhoda, District- Meerut, whereby the trial court has rejected the final report and treated protest petition as complaint case.

3. The brief contents of the complaint/FIR involve allegations by the complainant, Smt. Saroj, that after she demanded the repayment of a loan of Rs.20,000/- from one Sonu, Sonu colluded with the Station House Officer (SHO) Pradeep Kumar Singh and other police personnel of Police Station Kharkhoda, Meerut. The complainant states that on June 18, 2017, she was summoned to the police station where she faced severe caste-based slurs, physical assault, brutal custodial torture, and humiliation by the named police officers and other individuals. Furthermore, she alleges that valuables and cash were missing following the incident, that she was coerced under threats during her production before the magistrate, and that local authorities failed to take timely action on her initial complaints, leading her to seek legal remedy under relevant sections of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. The Investigating Officer has submitted final report concluding that the case (Crime No.530/2017) was registered against the SHO and 15 others pursuant to a court order under Section 156(3) CrPC lacked supporting evidence during the course of the investigation, which included reviewing statements, site inspections, and affidavits. The officer noted that the allegations made by the complainant were not substantiated by eyewitnesses and appeared to be a counterblast to Case Crime No.299/2017. Consequently, due to this complete lack of evidence, the final report recommended closing the investigation and requested the court's approval to accept the closure.

5. After submission of final report by the I.O, the compainant has filed protest petition supported by affidavits of Shivani @ Anamika, Ranbir Singh, Subhash Saini, Rajendra Saini, Tejpal, Rawat and Jay Prakash alongwith newspaper cutting, photographs etc in order to support the ‘contents of protest petition’.

6. The trial court vide order dated 6.10.2018 has treated the protest petition into complaint case and passed following order:-

7. Thereafter the accused appellants were summoned by the trial court under Sections 323, 504, 506, 354B, 509, 120B and Sections 3(2)(7), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act on the basis of evidence available on record during the course of inquiry proceeding.

8. In brief the grounds of appeal are that the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was entertained despite the complainant having allegedly failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 154(3) CrPC, thereby vitiating the initiation of the proceedings. After a full-fledged investigation culminating in the Final Report dated 24.01.2018, the learned court rejected the Final Report and treated the protest petition as a complaint without exercising jurisdiction in accordance with Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C., rendering the impugned order dated 6.10.2018 legally unsustainable. The appellants, being police officials posted at Police Station Kharkhauda at the relevant time, were alleged to have acted in the discharge of their official duties, and t