Kuldeep Gautam v. Vishal Singh and others), under Section

application but the concerned police officer neither lodged the FIR nor conducted his medical treatment. Thereafter, the appellant moved application before the District Magistrate Prayagraj on 16.10.2024, thereafter, the District Magistrate Prayagraj directed to the Chief Medical Officer, T.B. Sapru Hospital and Chief Medical Officer directed to C.H.C. Dhanupur District- Prayagraj for inquiry of injuries of the injured informant/appellant. Thereafter, on 17.10.2024 the medical examination was conducted by the doctor of C.H.C. Dhanupur District Prayagraj and advised for X-ray of head injury no.1 i.e. lacerated wound 2x5 cm. on right side of the head. On 04.11.2024 the X-ray of head injury no.1 of injured was conducted at T.B. Sapru Hospital Prayagraj. As per medical, all injuries caused by hard and blunt object.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said injury report was produced by injured before the concerned police station but the concerned police officers neither registered the case nor lodged the F.I.R. against the accused persons. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Prayagraj but the concerned authority also not taken any action against the accused persons nor lodged the F.I.R.. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS before the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj on 3.7.2023 along with medical report. He further submits that the learned court below vide order dated 21.5.2025 illegally rejected the application of the appellant without considering the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards Sub-clause 2 of Section 4 of SC/ST Act, which reads as under:- " [4. Punishment for neglect of duties.— (1) Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a 3 CRLA No. 10608 of 2025 Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act and the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year. (2) The duties of public servant referred to in sub-section (1) shall include–– (a) to read out to an informant the information given orally, and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, before taking the signature of the informant; (b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register it under appropriate sections of this Act; (c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded forthwith to thein formant; (d) to record the statement of the victims or witnesses; (e) to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing; (f) to correctly prepare, frame and translate any document or electronic record; (g) to perform any other duty specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder: Provided that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry. (3) xxxx"

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj did not appreciate the evidence on record and passed the impugned order, which is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but did not dispute the legal position of law.

8. Learned court below while passing the impugned order failed to consider the medical examination report, which clearly indicates the grievous head injury. Prima facie, the injuries proved cognizable offence, which requires investigation but the court below in a routine manner has treated the aforesaid application as a complaint case, therefore, has committed manifest error of law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.5.2025 passed by Special 4 CRLA No. 10608 of 2025 Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Prayagraj is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to reconsider the application under Section 173(4) of BNSS (old Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) afresh in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

11. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. November 19, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

application but the concerned police officer neither lodged the FIR nor conducted his medical treatment. Thereafter, the appellant moved application before the District Magistrate Prayagraj on 16.10.2024, thereafter, the District Magistrate Prayagraj directed to the Chief Medical Officer, T.B. Sapru Hospital and Chief Medical Officer directed to C.H.C. Dhanupur District- Prayagraj for inquiry of injuries of the injured informant/appellant. Thereafter, on 17.10.2024 the medical examination was conducted by the doctor of C.H.C. Dhanupur District Prayagraj and advised for X-ray of head injury no.1 i.e. lacerated wound 2x5 cm. on right side of the head. On 04.11.2024 the X-ray of head injury no.1 of injured was conducted at T.B. Sapru Hospital Prayagraj. As per medical, all injuries caused by hard and blunt object.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said injury report was produced by injured before the concerned police station but the concerned police officers neither registered the case nor lodged the F.I.R. against the accused persons. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Prayagraj but the concerned authority also not taken any action against the accused persons nor lodged the F.I.R.. Thereafter, the appellant moved an application under Section 173(4) of BNSS before the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj on 3.7.2023 along with medical report. He further submits that the learned court below vide order dated 21.5.2025 illegally rejected the application of the appellant without considering the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards Sub-clause 2 of Section 4 of SC/ST Act, which reads as under:- " [4. Punishment for neglect of duties.— (1) Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a 3 CRLA No. 10608 of 2025 Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act and the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year. (2) The duties of public servant referred to in sub-section (1) shall include–– (a) to read out to an informant the information given orally, and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, before taking the signature of the informant; (b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register it under appropriate sections of this Act; (c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded forthwith to thein formant; (d) to record the statement of the victims or witnesses; (e) to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing; (f) to correctly prepare, frame and translate any document or electronic record; (g) to perform any other duty specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder: Provided that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry. (3) xxxx"

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj did not appreciate the evidence on record and passed the impugned order, which is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but did not dispute the legal position of law.

8. Learned court below while passing the impugned order failed to consider the medical examination report, which clearly indicates the grievous head injury. Prima facie, the injuries proved cognizable offence, which requires investigation but the court below in a routine manner has treated the aforesaid application as a complaint case, therefore, has committed manifest error of law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.5.2025 passed by Special 4 CRLA No. 10608 of 2025 Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Prayagraj is hereby quashed and set aside.

10. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to reconsider the application under Section 173(4) of BNSS (old Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) afresh in accordance with law and to pass a reasoned order, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

11. With the above observations/directions, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. November 19, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)