The apex Supreme Court has clarified that a police‑initiated FIR cannot be dismissed merely because the police were attempting reconciliation between conflicting groups. This pronouncement came in a Punjab case involving alleged caste‑based violence, leading to the cancellation of anticipatory bail previously granted by the High Court and reinforcing the applicability of the SC/ST Act . Key Developments The bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran held that “the mere attempt at reconciliation cannot prevent the police from taking cognizance of criminal acts.” The Punjab & Haryana High Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the accused upper‑caste respondents, relying on the fact that the FIR was based on a police statement rather than a victim’s complaint. The Supreme Court set aside that decision, emphasizing that an FIR can be lodged on the basis of a police officer’s eyewitness account, irrespective of ongoing mediation. The Court reiterated police discretion to register an FIR for a cognizable offence , and that this power is not curtailed by reconciliation efforts. Consequently, the anticipatory bail was cancelled and the FIR was upheld, establishing a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act . Important Facts Location: A village in Punjab where a dispute arose between a Scheduled Caste group and an upper‑caste group. Trigger: Allegations that drainage water was being diverted into the houses of the Scheduled Caste families. Escalation: Police intervened to mediate; during the process, shots were fired and caste‑based abuse was directed at the Scheduled Caste members. Legal Procedure: FIR registered on the basis of a police officer’s statement; High Court granted anticipatory bail; Supreme Court reversed the bail. Legal Provision Invoked: SC/ST Act (1989). UPSC Relevance This judgment touches upon several core areas of the UPSC syllabus: Polity & Governance (GS2): The decision clarifies the statutory duties of police under the Criminal Procedure Code, the concept of cognizable offence , and the limits of judicial intervention in police discretion. Law & Social Justice (GS2): Interpretation of the SC/ST Act and its applicability in caste‑based violence cases. Human Rights & Social Issues (GS4): Highlights the protection mechanisms for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe populations. Way Forward For administrators and policymakers, the ruling underscores the need to: Ensure that police are trained to document and act on criminal incidents even while engaging in mediation, avoiding any perception that reconciliation supersedes legal duty. Strengthen monitoring mechanisms for FIRs lodged on police observations to prevent misuse while safeguarding victims’ rights. Promote awareness among communities about the protective provisions of the SC/ST Act , encouraging prompt reporting of atrocities. Overall, the judgment reaffirms that law enforcement’s statutory obligations cannot be diluted by informal dispute‑resolution efforts, a principle vital for upholding rule of law and social justice in India.