The Supreme Court has made it clear that attempts to calm tempers or broker peace between rival groups cannot stand in the way of criminal law. Even if police try to mediate a dispute, that effort does not prevent them from registering a case if a crime appears to have occurred.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran emphasized that reconciliation efforts cannot override the duty of law enforcement. The judges observed that simply trying to resolve tensions between parties does not strip the police of their authority to take action when criminal conduct is alleged.
The matter stemmed from a clash between two groups in a locality in Punjab. Members of the appellant side belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, while the opposing group came from an upper-caste background. The dispute reportedly began over accusations that drainage water was being diverted toward the homes of the appellants, sparking resentment within the neighborhood.
When tensions rose, police officers arrived and attempted to calm the situation through mediation. But instead of easing the dispute, the confrontation allegedly intensified. According to the account placed before the court, gunshots were fired during the standoff and caste-based insults were hurled at members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Following the incident, a First Information Report was registered based on the statement of a police officer who had witnessed the events.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the accused. Its reasoning centered on the fact that the FIR was filed based on a police officer’s statement rather than a complaint directly from the victims.
Members of the affected community challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
The apex court disagreed with the High Court’s approach, stressing that the origin of information leading to an FIR does not diminish its legitimacy. If a police officer personally witnesses a crime, their statement is sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings.
The judges further pointed out that police acknowledged the existence of serious tension in the locality and that the situation had escalated into alleged criminal acts. In such circumstances, the court noted, officers are obligated to act under the law even if they had simultaneously tried to mediate between the groups.
In its ruling, the court underscored that mediation or reconciliation efforts cannot dilute the statutory responsibility of police to enforce criminal law. If a cognizable offence appears to have been committed, registering an FIR falls squarely within the police’s discretion and duty.
With this reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order. The anticipatory bail granted to the accused was cancelled after the bench concluded that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had been made out.
