Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under SC/ST Act: Appellant’s Case

Consequently, on 20 January, 2016, a First Information Report (“first F.I.R”, hereafter) was registered against the appellant under sections 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”, hereafter) and 3(1)(x), the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”, hereafter).

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/we-are-therefore-of-the-opinion-that-the-patna-high-court-has-rightly-interpreted-the-definition-of-governmental-authority-under-clause-2s-of-the-exemption-notification-as-well-a/

reached the conclusion that there were materials against the appellant to send him up for trial and consequently, a charge-sheet dated 21 January, 2016 under sections 323, 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act was filed before the concerned court against him. Aggrieved by the aforesaid charge-sheet, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court on 5 October, 2018 by applying under section 482, Cr.

Having held that a prima facie case for grant of interim relief was set up, the High Court, vide interim order dated 15 November, 2018, directed that no coercive action be taken against the appellant, pending consideration of the application under section 482, Cr. The High Court noted that without evidence, it is not possible to ascertain the veracity of the allegations at this stage; the application for quashing of a charge-sheet or criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr. was placed in support of the contention that if the contents of the F.I.R., taken on their face value, does not make out any case against the appellant, such an F.I.R. was also placed to support the contention that the High Court ignored the 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (2020) 10 SCC 710 6 misuse and abuse of the provisions of the SC/ST Act by the complainant; neither the contents of the first F.I.R. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant (second respondent) supported the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act,

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/appellant-convicted-for-culpable-homicide-not-amounting-to-murder/

prior to its amendment notified vide S.O.

The first F.I.R., registered at the instance of the complainant, is silent about the place of occurrence and who, being a member of the public, was present when the appellant is alleged to have hurled caste related abuses at the complainant. That apart, assuming arguendo that the appellant had hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with a view to insult or humiliate him, the same does not advance the case of the complainant any further to bring it within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

Since section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court’s jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.PC and having regard to the overriding effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R.

The second question that would engage our attention is, whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be allowed to be taken further in view of the appellant facing accusation of offences punishable under sections 323 and 504, IPC. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent (State) in the present proceeding, there is no material worthy of consideration in this behalf except a bald statement that the complainant sustained multiple injuries “in his hand and other body parts”. ( a ) intentional insult, ( b ) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and ( c ) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/ownership-dispute-commissioners-order-and-revenue-documents/

The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied.

Case Title: RAMESH CHANDRA VAISHYA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 569)

Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001617-001617 / 2023

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *