Power Of Attorney Holder Does Not Have Locus To File Complaint On Behalf Of Victim Under SC/ST Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a Power of Attorney holder does not have the locus to file a complaint on behalf of the victim for offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. The Court observed that in such cases, the complaint is required to be made by the affected person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, and not by an agent without specific authorisation.

Justice Y. G. Khobragade was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of the Special Court issuing process under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complaint was filed by respondent No.2, claiming to be the General Power of Attorney holder of one Fakiri Kisan Gangave, a member of the Scheduled Tribe, alleging illegal transfer and encroachment of her land by the accused. The appellants contended that the complainant did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community and had no locus to file the complaint, as the alleged victim herself had not initiated any proceedings.

The Court examined the record and noted that the complainant had filed the complaint in his capacity as a Power of Attorney holder and not as the victim. It observed that the alleged victim, though a member of a Scheduled Tribe, had not come forward to lodge the complaint, nor was the complaint filed in her name.

The Court further examined the scope of the Power of Attorney and found that it did not authorise the complainant to initiate criminal proceedings. It held that merely acting as a Power of Attorney holder does not automatically confer the right to file such a complaint.

The Court also observed that though any person may set criminal law in motion under Section 154 CrPC, in the facts of the present case, the complainant was asserting commission of offences under the SC/ST Act on behalf of the victim, who herself had not approached the authorities, thereby raising serious doubt about maintainability.

“… it appears that the present respondent No.2 is trying to canvass that the appellants / accused persons have committed offence under Section 3(1)(f) and (1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, though the victim has not come forward and no any such complaint is lodged by her,” the Court observed.

On examining the material on record, including the report, the Court found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out and that the trial court had issued process without proper consideration of the legal requirements.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order issuing process, and dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent.

Case Title: Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2025]

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 209

Click Here To Read/Download Order