Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narender And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 13 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M)
Reserved On: 20.05.2026
Pronounced On: 13.07.2026
NARENDER AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate;
Mr. Sahil Nehra, Advocate and
Ms. Nitika Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for respondent No.2
SUBHAS MEHLA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No.387 dated
08.08.2018 registered under Sections 294, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short ‘IPC‘) and Section 3 of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) at Police
Station Beri, District Jhajjar and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 06.08.2018, petitioner
No.1-Narender, petitioner No.2-Satinder and one Rajpal allegedly misbehaved
with Mahant Shri Rajinder Dass Ji. Pursuant thereto, a village Panchayat was
convened on 08.08.2018 to resolve the dispute. It is alleged that when the
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 2
petitioners reached the place of Panchayat, they started abusing the complainant
party, hurled caste-based remarks against respondent No.2 and Ram Chander
Harijan, and thereafter assaulted them with bricks. Thereafter, the petitioners are
alleged to have extended telephonic threats to the complainant party.
Consequently, the present FIR was registered. During the course of the
investigation, offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act was also added to the
FIR. The gravamen of the present petition is the subsequent addition of the
offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act to the FIR and entails a legal challenge
to the manner in which the said provisions were invoked.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
primarily assailed the invocation of the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST
Act during the course of investigation. It was contended that the said provision
was incorporated two days after registration of the FIR without conducting a
preliminary inquiry, which, according to learned counsel, was mandatory in view
of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra; 2018 INSC 248. It was, thus, argued that the
subsequent addition of the offence under the SC/ST Act was legally
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
4. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel
further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and that, in
fact, it was the complainant party which had assaulted them, causing injuries for
which they had received medical treatment. It was also submitted that although
the petitioners had lodged a complaint regarding the said occurrence, which was
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 3
recorded vide Daily Diary Report No.39 dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure P-5), no
FIR was registered thereon, compelling them to institute a private complaint
before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar. Learned counsel
argued that these circumstances further demonstrate that the provision under the
SC/ST Act was invoked at the instance of respondent No.2 with a mala fide
intention to aggravate the allegations against the petitioners.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and
submitted that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR and upon
completion of investigation, sufficient incriminating material was found against
them, culminating in the presentation of the challan before the competent Court.
It was further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioners on Dr.
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) is wholly misconceived, as the said
judgment has been reviewed and overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union of India v. State of Maharashtra; 2019 INSC 1102. It was argued that
the provision under the SC/ST Act was invoked only after due consideration of
the material collected during investigation and that no preliminary inquiry or
prior approval before arrest is envisaged under the prevailing legal position.
Learned counsel further contended that the present petition is an attempt to
thwart the prosecution despite existence of prima facie material disclosing the
commission of offences under the IPC as well as the SC/ST Act. Hence, learned
State counsel prayed that the present petition lacked merits, and ought to be
dismissed.
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 4
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 adopted
the submissions advanced by learned State counsel and further contended that
the present petition is devoid of merits. It was submitted that the allegations
contained in the FIR, coupled with the material collected during investigation,
prima facie disclose the commission of offence under the SC/ST Act and,
therefore, the investigating agency was fully justified in invoking the said
provision of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act during the course of investigation.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are attempting to
challenge the merits of the prosecution case under the guise of assailing the
subsequent addition of the provision of the SC/ST Act and that the disputed
questions of fact sought to be raised cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It was thus prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
7. Heard.
8. The controversy in the present petition lies within a narrow
compass. While the petitioners contend that the provision of the SC/ST Act was
illegally invoked during investigation in the absence of a preliminary inquiry,
the said contention is disputed by the respondents, who maintain that the
investigating agency acted strictly in accordance with the prevailing legal
position.
9. In the light of the rival submissions, the short question which arises
for consideration before this Court is whether the subsequent invocation of the
provision of the SC/ST Act during the course of investigation is rendered illegal
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 5
solely on the ground that no preliminary inquiry preceded the addition of the said
offence.
10. The answer to the aforesaid question necessarily turns upon the
legal position governing the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before
invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The principal plank of the
petitioners’ challenge rests upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra), wherein certain directions were
issued with regard to the conduct of a preliminary inquiry before taking action
under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The respondents, however, contend that
the said directions no longer hold the field in view of the subsequent decisions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore, apposite to examine the legal
position as it presently stands.
11. A perusal of the subsequent legal developments reveals that the
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan (supra) requiring the conduct of a preliminary inquiry before taking
action under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, did not remain operative.
12. In Union of India v. State of Maharashtra (supra), while deciding
the review petitions arising out of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reconsidered the correctness of the directions
requiring a preliminary inquiry before taking action under the provisions of the
SC/ST Act and held as under:.
The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder:
“The direction has also been issued that the Dy. S.P. should
conduct a preliminary inquiry to find out whether allegations
make out a case under the Atrocities Act, and that the allegations
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 6are not frivolous or motivated. In case a cognisable offence is
made out, the FIR has to be outrightly registered, and no
preliminary inquiry has to be made as held in Lalita Kumari
(supra) by a Constitution Bench. There is no such provision in
the Code of Criminal Procedure for preliminary inquiry or under
the SC/ST Act, as such direction is impermissible. Moreover, it is
ordered to be conducted by the person of the rank of Dy. S.P. The
number of Dy. S.P. as per stand of Union of India required for
such an exercise of preliminary inquiry is not available. The
direction would mean that even if a complaint made out a
cognizable offence, an FIR would not be registered until the
preliminary inquiry is held. In case a preliminary inquiry
concludes that allegations are false or motivated, FIR is not to be
registered in such a case how a final report has to be filed in the
Court. The direction (iv) cannot survive for the other reasons as
it puts the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in a disadvantageous position in the matter of procedure
vis-a-vis to the complaints lodged by members of upper caste, for
later no such preliminary investigation is necessary, in that view
of matter it should not be necessary to hold preliminary inquiry
for registering an offence under the Atrocities Act of 1989″.
(emphasis supplied)
A plain reading of the aforesaid observations leaves no manner of
doubt that the directions issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra)
requiring the conduct of a preliminary inquiry before invocation of the
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 7
provisions of the SC/ST Act did not survive in the review judgment. On the
contrary, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that neither Cr.P.C. nor
the SC/ST Act contemplates such a preliminary inquiry where the allegations
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The requirement was held to
be legally impermissible, as it would place members of the scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes at a procedural disadvantage and defeat the object of the special
legislation. The legal position, therefore, stands authoritatively settled that where
the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence under the
provisions of the SC/ST Act, a preliminary inquiry is not required before
registration of the FIR or invocation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
13. The aforesaid legal position was subsequently reaffirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020 AIR
SC 1036), wherein the constitutional validity of the amendments to the SC/ST
Act was upheld:
“Concerning the provisions contained in Section 18A, suffice it to
observe that with respect to preliminary inquiry for registration of
FIR, we have already recalled the general directions (iii) and (iv)
issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath‘s case (supra). A preliminary
inquiry is permissible only in the circumstances as per the law laid
down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, shall hold good as
explained in the order passed by this Court in the review petitions
on 1.10.2019 and the amended provisions of Section 18A have to
be interpreted accordingly.”
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 8
The Apex Court reiterated that the statutory scheme of the SC/ST
Act does not envisage a preliminary inquiry as a condition precedent for
initiating action thereunder. It was categorically observed that the directions
issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (supra) requiring a preliminary
inquiry before registration of an FIR under the SC/ST Act had already been
recalled and that a preliminary inquiry would be permissible only in the limited
circumstances recognized by the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1. Thus, no independent or
mandatory preliminary inquiry is contemplated merely because the provisions
of the SC/ST Act are sought to be invoked.
14. The aforesaid legal position also has to be appreciated in the context
of the settled principle governing the operation of judicial precedents. It is well
settled that when a Court subsequently corrects or alters an earlier understanding
of the law, it does not enact a new rule of law but merely declares what the law
has always been. Unless expressly directed otherwise, a judicial pronouncement
declaring the law operates retrospectively and governs all pending proceedings.
In Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra
Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2008) 14 SCC 171, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
explained the aforesaid principle in the following terms:
“In our judgment, it is also well settled that a judicial decision
acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not
the function of the court to pronounce a ‘new rule’ but to
maintain and expound the ‘old one’. In other words, Judges do
not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The
law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 9the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It
only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be
applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an
earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the
decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect
clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly
understood.”
The said principle has recently been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kanishk Sinha v. State of West Bengal, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 443, wherein it was held:
“Now the law of prospective and retrospective operation is
absolutely clear. Whereas a law made by the legislature is always
prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the
statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for
the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is
interpreted by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be
retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states
that the judgment will operate prospectively.”
Viewed in the aforesaid light, the review judgment in Union of
India v. State of Maharashtra (supra) did not lay down a new proposition of
law; rather, it authoritatively declared the correct legal position governing the
requirement of a preliminary inquiry under the SC/ST Act. Consequently, the
law so declared would govern the present proceedings notwithstanding that the
FIR came to be registered prior to the pronouncement of the review judgment.
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-1022-2019 (O&M) 10
15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the
principal challenge raised by the petitioners rests solely upon the contention that
the provision under the SC/ST Act was incorporated during the course of
investigation without first conducting a preliminary inquiry. In view of the legal
position authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India
vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra) the said contention cannot be accepted.
Once the requirement of a preliminary inquiry stood expressly negated, the mere
fact that a provision of the SC/ST Act was invoked during investigation without
such an inquiry cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing the FIR or the
consequential proceedings.
16. Since the very premise of such challenge no longer survives in view
of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. The
State of Maharashtra (supra), this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the
action of the investigating agency.
17. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, deserves
to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUBHAS MEHLA)
JUDGE
13.07.2026
Manisha
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
MANISHA
2026.07.13 16:46
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
