Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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