Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: No Allegation Must Match Specific Legal Criteria

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling  has quashed the charges framed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against Shashikant Sharma & Ors. In their appeal against the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. This decision is pivotal in the context of how charges under the SC/ST Act are to be framed and assessed.

Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the case, emphasized a crucial legal standard in their judgment: “There must be an allegation that the accused, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, committed an offence under the IPC punishable for a term of 10 years or more against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that such person belongs to such ‘community’.”

The appeal challenged the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Special Judge under SC/ST(PoA) Act in Hathras, which had upheld the charges under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST Act. The appellants argued against the validity of the charges, particularly under the SC/ST Act.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, found that the allegations did not sufficiently indicate that the offences were committed with the specific knowledge that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of meeting every legal requirement for framing a charge under the SC/ST Act.

The judgment maintains that the trial for other IPC offences will proceed in the relevant Court of Sessions. This landmark ruling brings into focus the necessity of precise and legally sound allegations to uphold charges under specialized laws like the SC/ST Act, setting a precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: 1st December 2023

SHASHIKANT SHARMA & ORS. VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Latest Legal News