Frivolous Prosecution Filed to Recover Earnest Money, Not to Prosecute Crime: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning in SC/ST Act Case

"When a purely civil dispute is coloured as a criminal case, it is an abuse of process" – Allahabad High Court delivered a scathing judgment in the case of Chandrakesh Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. and Another, where it quashed the summoning order passed under the SC/ST Act and IPC provisions, observing that the prosecution was "nothing but an abuse of process of the Court".

Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha, while allowing the criminal appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, held that the complaint was filed not with an intent to prosecute a real criminal offence, but to pressurize the accused for refund of earnest money in a purely civil dispute dressed up in criminal colours.

“Allegations raised are almost identical in earlier and present prosecution”—Court rules on double jeopardy and malicious prosecution

The complainant, Smt. Amarwati, had previously filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, bearing Application No. 875 of 2022, alleging that Chandrakesh Bhardwaj and co-accused Bijendra had fraudulently induced her to sell her plot, misrepresented a different plot in exchange, and retained ₹5 lakhs as part of the deal. On the basis of that application, an FIR had already been registered under IPC and SC/ST Act provisions.

Despite this, the complainant filed a second complaint under almost identical factual allegations, with the only addition being a rape allegation, which the Special Judge later rejected for lack of merit.

Justice Sinha, after carefully comparing both complaints, concluded: “From perusal of the averments made in [the previous and present complaints], the averments are almost identical except that in the present prosecution, additional allegation of rape has been levelled... however, the learned Special Judge has not found the said allegation true…”

“Complainant continues to seek refund even after alleging rape and caste insult”—Delay and conduct cast doubt on motive, says Court

The Court expressed strong doubts on the veracity of the complaint due to the complainant’s six-month delay in approaching the court, and her continued contact with the accused to seek a refund even after the alleged rape and caste abuse.

Justice Sinha observed: “Present prosecution has been lodged after a delay of more than six months and as per prosecution version, the victim continued to make repeated request to the appellant and the co-accused... even after the incident of rape and abuse by using caste name was committed with her.”

This led the Court to remark that the entire story lacked credibility, and the prosecution appeared to be a tool for arm-twisting and harassment, rather than a genuine grievance under criminal law.

“Abuse of SC/ST Act weakens genuine cases”—Court reminds litigants of the legislative intent

Citing settled law from the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that to invoke the SC/ST Act, the offence must be committed because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, not merely that the victim happens to be from such a group.

Justice Sinha emphasized: “Simply the offence committed against a member of SC community does not amount to an offence under SC/ST Act... it is the intention to commit the offence only because the victim is a member of SC/ST community.”

“Courts must ‘read between the lines’ in vexatious complaints”—High Court follows Mohd. Wajid and Pradeep Kesarwani

In reaching his conclusion, Justice Sinha relied heavily on two major Supreme Court judgments:

1. Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. [(2023) 20 SCC 219]

2. Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. [2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 119]

The Court quoted approvingly:

“In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances... and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.”

Applying the Bhajan Lal parameters and tests laid out in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, the Court concluded that the criminal proceedings did not disclose any prima facie offence, and allowing such a prosecution would amount to judicial endorsement of harassment.

“Litigant cannot pursue parallel prosecutions to pressurize return of civil dues”—Court quashes the entire criminal complaint

Holding that the litigation was primarily aimed at recovering ₹5,00,000 allegedly paid in a land transaction, the Court held that the dispute was civil in nature, and the complaint had been filed with an oblique motive.

The Court stated:

“Present prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court as it has been lodged with the intent and purpose of putting pressure on the appellant to return the earnest money... The refund of earnest money is a civil dispute for which civil remedy lies.”

“Courts must protect liberty against weaponized criminal law”—All proceedings quashed under IPC and SC/ST Act

The High Court, in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, finally declared:

“Accordingly, present appeal stands allowed. The impugned order dated 23.7.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut... are hereby set aside.”

This judgment will act as a shield for innocents dragged into malicious litigation under SC/ST Act, while reaffirming that genuine grievances must be prosecuted in the proper forum, whether civil or criminal.

Date of Decision: 26.09.2025