Merely Stating Caste Name Or Using Abusive Language Won't Attract SC/ST Act If Not In Public View: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC provisions, holding that the prosecution appeared to be a “counterblast” to an earlier dowry harassment complaint filed by one of the accused against her husband and in-laws. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha was hearing an application seeking quashing of the order...
The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC provisions, holding that the prosecution appeared to be a “counterblast” to an earlier dowry harassment complaint filed by one of the accused against her husband and in-laws.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha was hearing an application seeking quashing of the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran at Chapra taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
According to the FIR lodged by the informant, Kalawati Devi, she was residing in the house and looking after the farmland of late Ramji Singh. It was alleged that after the marriage of Manish Kumar, son of late Ramji Singh, with appellant no. 4 Shalini Sharma in June 2019, the accused persons began abusing the informant using caste-based slurs and threatening her to vacate the house.
The FIR further alleged that on 29.06.2020, the accused persons assaulted the informant, dragged her by her hair onto the road, tore her saree, assaulted her husband, and threatened her at gunpoint to vacate the premises.
Before the High Court, senior counsel for the appellants argued that the FIR was malicious and instituted only after appellant no. 4 had lodged a dowry harassment complaint at Jaipur Mahila Police Station on 20.01.2020 against her husband and in-laws under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.
It was further submitted that the appellants were permanent residents of Jaipur, Rajasthan, and had been living there for decades. Reliance was placed on CCTV footage, biometric attendance records, ration card documents, ESI records, and educational certificates to demonstrate that the accused persons were in Jaipur on the alleged date of occurrence.
The Court noted that the marriage dispute and the earlier 498A complaint preceded the present FIR.
The Bench observed:
“The FIR is a counterblast and tool to harass the appellants by way of launching false and malicious prosecution.”
The Court further held that from the FIR itself, it did not appear that the alleged caste-based abuses were made “in full public view” with intent to humiliate the informant. It observed:
“Merely stating the caste name or using simple abusive language, especially if not in full public view, does not automatically constitute an offense under Section 3(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”
The Court also took note of the electronic evidence placed on record, including CCTV footage and biometric attendance records, observing that the documents could safely be treated as “unimpeachable documents.” It additionally noted that appellant no. 2 was suffering from paralysis and that the accused family had consistently been residing in Jaipur.
Criticising the investigation, the Court observed that the charge sheet was “cryptic and perfunctory” and merely reproduced penal sections without disclosing foundational facts or evidence. The Bench further noted that the alleged occurrence took place during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown when travel restrictions were in force, making the allegations “more dubious.”
The Court observed:
“It is beyond imagination that the appellants will travel from Jaipur to the alleged place of occurrence at Saran, Bihar, which is more than 1000 kilometers in distance.”
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court and private vendetta, the High Court quashed both the cognizance order and the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Garhka P.S. Case No. 298 of 2020.
Case Title: Ankit Kumar Sharma and Ors v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1011 of 2024.
Appearance: Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Mr. Sushant Srivastava, and Mrs. Sonali Priya for the Appellants. Mr. Sadanand Paswa, Mr. Rama Kant Sharma and Mr. Baban Kumar for the Respondent.