Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under SCST Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, 19th May 2023: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a criminal case involving allegations of verbal abuse and physical assault. The case, which arose out of an altercation over a drainage issue, questioned the validity of the charge-sheet and the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellant.

The appellant, Ramesh Chandra Vaishya, had challenged the dismissal of his application seeking the quashing of the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The prosecution's case was based on a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the complainant, who alleged that the appellant verbally abused and physically assaulted him.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, examined the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), which were invoked in the case. The appellant's counsel argued that the allegations made in the charge-sheet and FIR did not disclose any offence and were filed with mala fide intentions.

One of the key points of contention was whether the appellant's actions constituted an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, which deals with intentional insults or intimidation with the intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Supreme Court held that for an offence to be established under this section, the insult or intimidation must be targeted at the victim because of their caste identity. The court found that the charge-sheet and FIR lacked specific details to establish that the insults were caste-related and intended to humiliate the complainant.

Regarding the offences under the IPC, the court examined the charges of voluntarily causing hurt (section 323) and intentional insult (section 504). It noted a lack of evidence regarding the nature of injuries and witnesses supporting the prosecution's case. The court observed that the allegations made by the complainant did not demonstrate an intentional insult that would provoke a person to break public peace or commit another offence.

The Supreme Court further highlighted that the High Court had failed to consider the appellant's challenge to the criminal proceedings and charge-sheet in the proper perspective. It emphasized that the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was limited and should be exercised with caution. In this case, the court found that there was an abuse of the process of law, leading to a grave failure of justice.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and quashed the criminal case against the appellant. The court deemed it unjustified to continue the proceedings, given the absence of evidence, intentional insult, and targeted caste-related abuses.

DATE: 19th May, 2023

Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 

Latest Legal News