Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Criminal Proceedings under SCST Act - Abuse of Process of Law – Quashed - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On dated 05Feb2023, Supreme Court (B. VENKATESWARAN & ORS. Vs. P. BAKTHAVATCHALAM) quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order under SCST Act held that a private dispute between parties regarding illegal construction converted into criminal proceedings. Initiation of criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 appears to be an abuse of process of law.

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the alleged offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Special Court took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the accused persons. The accused persons filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings, but the High Court dismissed the application.

The appellant filed an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Madras, in which the High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant for the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Supreme Court observed that the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant for the offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was an abuse of process of law and that the allegations in the complaint did not mention any deliberate and willful obstruction or interference with the enjoyment of the respondent's right on his property. The court found that the complaint was a conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal dispute. The court noted that prior to the filing of the complaint, the temple was already in existence and that the complainant had filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court regarding the same issue.

Court held that a private dispute between parties regarding illegal construction converted into criminal proceedings and Initiation of criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 appears to be an abuse of process of law. The allegations in the complaint do not suggest that the accused deliberately and willfully obstructed or interfered with the complainant's enjoyment of his property knowing that the complainant belongs to SC/ST. The case appears to be a civil dispute rather than a criminal one, with the temple being in existence for many years. The High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition is unsustainable and the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused deserve to be quashed and set aside. The appeal allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused quashed and set aside.

VENKATESWARAN & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VS BAKTHAVATCHALAM RESPONDENT(S)

Latest Legal News