The Complaint That Mixed a Caste Insult With a Property Claim
A woman comes to a district thana and hands over a handwritten complaint in Hindi. The material lines read: “पड़ोसी रमेश ने मुझे खुलेआम जातिसूचक गाली दी और कहा कि यह मोहल्ला तुम्हारे जैसों के रहने लायक नहीं; फिर उसने मेरा हाथ पकड़कर धमकाया कि घर छोड़ दो। साथ ही मेरे पति के भाई ने मेरे स्त्रीधन के दो जोड़े कंगन नहीं लौटाए।” The duty officer tells her, “स्त्रीधन का मामला सिविल है, और गाली देने पर कुछ नहीं होता - दोनों मिल-जुलकर समझौता कर लो।” She refuses, and insists on a written receipt for her complaint. The thana in-charge now has the paper in front of him, and knows the complaint mixes a caste-based insult in public view, a threat accompanied by physical restraint, and a claim to ornaments held by a relative. He must decide what is cognizable, what is civil, and how the FIR should be worded.
1. Separate the complaint into the sentences that can found an FIR and the sentence that is a civil claim. State the ingredients each FIR allegation must satisfy.
Read the worked answer
Take the sentences one by one.
“जातिसूचक गाली दी… यह मोहल्ला तुम्हारे जैसों के रहने लायक नहीं” - this is an allegation of intentional insult on the ground of caste, in public view, with intent to humiliate. That squarely raises the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, S.3(1)(r). The ingredient that must appear on the paper is the exact word used: “गाली दी” is not a fact, it is a summary. The abusive words must be recorded verbatim, in the complainant's own spelling, and the “सार्वजनिक दृश्य” element must be recorded as who else was present.
“हाथ पकड़कर धमकाया कि घर छोड़ दो” - two allegations: voluntarily obstructing her movement (wrongful restraint) and a threat (criminal intimidation). For the second, the FIR must say what was threatened - injury to person, reputation or property - because the section turns on that.
The ornaments - without entrustment, a date and dishonest misappropriation, this is a property claim between relatives, not a police case. Record it, guide her to the civil/family remedy, and do not dilute the FIR by mixing it in.
2. The duty officer says the parties should compromise. Would you hold a preliminary enquiry or send her away? Answer with the governing rule.
Read the worked answer
No. Three reasons, in order of importance.
First, the offence alleged is cognizable, and registration on information disclosing a cognizable offence is mandatory, not discretionary. The officer has no power to test the complaint at the counter and refer the parties to a compromise.
Second, for an atrocity allegation the statute forecloses the escape route: the 2018 amendment inserted S.18A in the SC/ST (POA) Act, which provides that no preliminary enquiry shall be required for registration of an FIR under the Act. So the “let us first verify whether it is true” method is not available here.
Third, these offences are not the police's to settle. A compromise between the parties cannot be a ground for not registering; compounding is a matter for the court on the offences where it is permitted at all.
Practical consequence: register the FIR on the same paper, give the complainant a free copy of the FIR, and record her supplementary statement to capture the exact words and the witnesses. If any part is genuinely civil, say so in writing and guide her, rather than converting the whole complaint into “a dispute between neighbours”.
3. Rewrite the two criminal sentences as precise FIR language in Hindi, and explain what the rewrite changes.
Read the worked answer
A workable draft, keeping her words:
“आरोपी रमेश ने दिनांक … को लगभग … बजे, मोहल्ले के सार्वजनिक स्थान पर, मेरी जाति का उल्लेख करते हुए मुझे ‘…(यथावत शब्द)…’ कहकर अपमानित किया और कहा कि ‘यह मोहल्ला तुम्हारे जैसों के रहने लायक नहीं है।’ इसके बाद आरोपी ने मेरा हाथ पकड़कर मेरी इच्छा के विरुद्ध रोका और कहा कि ‘घर छोड़ दो, वरना …(धमकी की प्रकृति यथावत)…।’ घटना के समय मौजूद व्यक्ति - (नाम)।”
What the rewrite changes: “गाली दी” becomes the actual words, because the section requires the insult to be on the ground of caste and the court must see what was said. “धमकाया” becomes a stated threat, because intimidation requires a threat of a specified kind. Date, time, place and presence of others are pushed in as ingredients, not background. “आरोपी” is used consistently, so the paper does not slip into “शिकायतकर्ता के अनुसार” framing. Nothing is added that she did not say - that is the limit of redrafting, and exceeding it is where FIRs are later broken in cross-examination.