SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"After taking into the overall circumstances leading to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners... would lead to an irresistible conclusion that the criminal proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious and malicious." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that criminal proceedings instituted with the ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance against police officers discharging their official duties are liable to be quashed.

A bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that continuing such "manifestly frivolous, vexatious and malicious" proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the complaint is a clear counterblast to disciplinary actions taken against the complainant.

The petitioners were a Sub-Inspector and a Constable. The complainant, a Head Constable, was suspended after an internal police inquiry revealed he was allegedly leaking information about police raids to local ganja and matka organizers for pecuniary gain. Believing the petitioners were responsible for the report that led to his suspension, the complainant filed a private complaint twenty days after the alleged incident, claiming the petitioners abused him by his caste name in public view. The Special Judge took cognizance of the complaint, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The primary question before the court was whether the private complaint filed under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Indian Penal Code was a malicious prosecution intended to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. The court was also called upon to determine whether the statements of witnesses with extensive criminal records could be trusted to establish the "public view" requirement under the SC/ST Act.

Duty Of Court To Examine Attending Circumstances

The High Court emphasised that in cases where proceedings appear frivolous or vexatious, the court owes a duty to look beyond the mere averments made in the complaint. Relying on the Supreme Court's mandate in Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, the bench noted that a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC must carefully examine the overall circumstances leading to the initiation of the case. The judge stated that looking into the FIR alone is not enough, and the court must "try to read in between the lines" to prevent the abuse of criminal law.

Delay In Lodging Complaint Raises Doubts

Scrutinising the facts, the court found it highly unnatural that the complainant, despite being a police officer himself, waited nearly twenty days to lodge the complaint regarding the alleged caste-based abuse. The court observed that the suspension order against the complainant was passed on March 10, 2022, and the present complaint was filed after a lapse of forty days. The bench highlighted that as a police person, the complainant ought to have reported the matter immediately to show his bona fides, rendering the delayed private complaint highly suspect.

Meaning Of 'Public View' Under SC/ST Act

Addressing the statutory requirement of the offence occurring in "public view" under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the court referred to the Delhi High Court's ruling in Daya Bhatnagar v. State of Delhi. The court reiterated that "public view" requires the presence of independent and impartial persons. It noted that if the group of people present are not independent or share a close relationship or vested interest with the complainant, the statutory requirement remains unsatisfied.

Witnesses With Chequered History Unreliable

The bench critically examined the three eyewitnesses cited by the complainant, noting that all of them possessed a "chequered history" with multiple criminal cases registered against them in the very same police station. Concluding that their presence at the scene was highly improbable, the court stated that the witnesses were neither strangers to the parties nor independent. The court inferred that after due deliberations, the complainant foisted this false case by arraying persons with criminal records to act as witnesses.

Malicious Prosecution To Wreck Vengeance

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the criminal prosecution was a direct counterblast to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the complainant for colluding with antisocial elements. The court found that the case squarely fell within the seventh parameter laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which mandates the quashing of proceedings that are manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted to spite the accused due to a private and personal grudge.

Holding that continuing the proceedings against the police officers was nothing but an abuse of the process of law, the High Court allowed the criminal petition. The proceedings pending on the file of the Special Judge for the trial of cases under the SC/ST Act at Kurnool against the petitioners were accordingly quashed.

Date of Decision: 17 July 2026