New Delhi: Holding that allegations of caste-based harassment cannot be rejected at the threshold over perceived evidentiary gaps, a Delhi court has directed the registration of an FIR on a complaint by a data entry operator alleging workplace discrimination and verbal abuse by colleagues.“A preliminary inquiry is permissible only where the information does not, on its face, disclose a cognisable offence, and even then such inquiry is confined to ascertaining whether a cognisable offence is disclosed; it cannot be converted into a means of testing the truthfulness, credibility or evidentiary sufficiency of the allegations,” the court held.Judicial magistrate Ravi of Patiala House courts was hearing a complaint filed by a data entry operator with the NDMC, who alleged that she was subjected to sustained casteist abuse, humiliation and harassment between Aug 2024 and March 2025 after her Scheduled Caste status became known at her workplace.Represented by advocate Kajal Singhal, the complainant listed specific dates, times and verbatim casteist slurs, including “neech chamari”, allegedly used against her in the presence of other officials. She further alleged that despite repeated representations to NDMC chairperson, chief vigilance officer (CVO) and SC/ST commission, no action was taken. She also claimed that a counter-complaint was “engineered” against her by the department.In its action taken report, the police recommended against registration of an FIR, stating that the preliminary inquiry yielded no admissions from the accused, no corroboration from independent witnesses and no functional CCTV footage. The police also described the complaint as “general in nature” and potentially “retaliatory”.The court, however, disagreed, holding that the police had exceeded the limited scope of a preliminary inquiry by attempting to assess the strength of the evidence before registration of the case.“The police were not justified in withholding registration of the FIR on the ground of insufficiency of corroboration or absence of independent proof,” the court said.Addressing the police’s reliance on statements of independent witnesses, magistrate Ravi held that whether such witnesses support the complainant’s version or whether her allegations ultimately stand proved are “questions for investigation and trial, not preconditions for registration of the FIR.”