Where Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt, Benefit Must Go To The Accused: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Lok Adalat Award Cannot Override Registered Lease Deed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Execution Petition for Eviction Deemed Conveyance Does Not Enlarge Title — Civil Court Must Adjudicate Ownership Disputes: Bombay High Court Common Intention Must Be Proved—No One Can Be Convicted Solely for Being Named Among a Group: Calcutta High Court Mere Abusive Language or Threat, Without Sexual Colour, Does Not Attract Section 354A IPC: Delhi High Court Forcing a Child to Carry the Trauma Is an Assault on Dignity: Gujarat High Court Allows Termination of 15-Week Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor Framing of Charge is Not a Final Order, No Appeal Lies Under Section 14A of SC/ST Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Interest Earned from Axis Bank Is ‘Attributable’ to Credit Business – Not a Separate Source of Income: ITAT Chennai Grants 80P Deduction Must Be Proved, Not May Be Proved: Karnataka High Court Upholds Triple Murder Conviction On Complete Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence Statutory Scheme Overrides Hereditary Claims: Kerala High Court Upholds Executive Officer Appointment at Malamakkavu Ayyappa Temple No Mid-Stream Change In Examination Centre Once Exams Are Underway:  Orissa High Court Draws Line On Judicial Interference Forest Allegation Found Baseless, Petitioner Had Personal Grudge: NGT Dismisses Plea Alleging Illegal Mining in Raisen Protected Forest CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case Permit Is Not a Formality, It’s a Legal Necessity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Directs Insurer to ‘Pay and Recover’ for Accident Caused by Vehicle Plying Outside Authorized States A Compromise Before Court Is Not a Private Contract but a Solemn Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail Senior Citizens Misled with FD Promises Can’t Be Bound by Insurance Contracts: Chandigarh State Commission Upholds Full Refund with Interest No Specific Forum Under Trust Act to Adjudicate Election Disputes Involving Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Civil Court Jurisdiction Mere Presence is Not Conspiracy: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Ganja Case Where Intermediate Quantity Alone Recovered from Accused Sufficient Cause Is Not a Matter of Sympathy, But Substance: Bombay High Court Rejects 645-Day Delay in Filing Review Petition

SC quashes FIR registered under SC/ST Act over disputed land after 60 years, calls it abuse of process

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has quashed an FIR registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, over disputed land after 60 years, calling it an abuse of process of the court. The Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, in a judgement delivered on May 10, said that "purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court."

The case relates to a dispute over land ownership between the appellant, one of the co-owners, and the respondent, who filed an FIR under the SC/ST Act alleging caste-based atrocities, after the failure to obtain relief in civil suits.

The Court found that the delay in initiating the dispute, coupled with the failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, was a clear indication that the case was filed with ulterior motives and for oblique reasons. The Bench also held that even if the allegations were taken at face value, it was not discernible that any offence could be said to have been made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant.

The Court observed that the officers who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty-bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the accused concerned. The Court clarified that its remarks were not intended to dilute the applicability of special or stringent statutes but were to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.

The Bench referred to various precedents, including the recent judgement in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315, and held that the High Court fell in error in not invoking its wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the Court to quash criminal proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR, as well as any proceedings emanating from it, insofar as they related to the appellant.

DATE: May 10, 2023

SRI GULAM MUSTAFA  vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.        

Latest Legal News