Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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