SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court

"Unless the victim is abused, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to the SC & ST, only then the provisions of this Act shall come into play and not otherwise." Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that civil disputes regarding land or water rights cannot be converted into criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, absent any nexus to the caste of the victim.

A bench of Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh observed that the mere existence of a dispute involving a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe does not automatically satisfy the ingredients of Section 3(1)(g) of the Act.

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by a woman alleging that the respondent, Bishan Chand Sharma, had damaged a water pipeline and altered a connection point, which subsequently impacted her access to water and the use of her land. The State challenged the discharge of the accused, contending that the interference with the complainant’s property and water supply constituted an offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the Act.

The primary issue before the court was whether the acts of the respondent, occurring within the context of a civil property dispute between joint landowners, met the threshold for "wrongful dispossession" or interference under Section 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act, specifically requiring the element of caste-based victimization.

Requirement of Caste-Based Nexus

The Court observed that for an offence under Section 3(1)(g) to be established, it is imperative that the alleged act of wrongful dispossession or interference with rights over land or water facilities must be committed against the victim because they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Court noted that in the present case, the conflict originated from the shifting of a common T-point to prevent water leakage, and there was no material on record to suggest that the complainant’s caste was the motive for the respondent's actions.

Court Explains Limitation of SC/ST Act

The Court emphasized that the provisions of the SC/ST Act cannot be invoked to settle private civil disputes, such as those regarding boundary walls or the joint usage of land. The Court clarified that such grievances fall squarely within the domain of civil courts and that transforming them into criminal proceedings under the special statute amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

"Where there is a dispute about the possession of the land between the parties, the provisions of the SC & ST Act will not be attracted."

To support its reasoning, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, affirming that the Act is designed to protect vulnerable sections against caste-based atrocities, not to facilitate the resolution of property disputes. The Court further referred to Ashok Kumar Versus Murtu Devi, reiterating that the Act’s protective umbrella is limited to instances where the harassment is specifically tethered to the victim’s caste identity, and not merely where the victim happens to be from a protected category.

The Court concluded that since the dispute pertained to the management of joint property and water connection maintenance, the learned Special Judge correctly exercised discretion in discharging the accused. Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the criminal machinery was incorrectly set in motion for a matter that is essentially civil in nature.

Date of Decision: 24 September 2026