The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the State Scheduled Castes Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by recording that a charge under Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was proved and recommending registration of an FIR against the petitioner. The Court observed that such a determination rests with the criminal Court.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the Commission's recommendation to register FIR against the petitioner as the Commission found the charge levelled against the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to be proved. The petitioner was facing a complaint by a student who alleged that he was pressurising her in connection with a cheating case; the petitioner submitted that an investigation on similar allegations had already found the complaint to be false, yet the Commission proceeded to pass the impugned recommendation.

The petitioner contended that the Commission, under the garb of recommendation, had explicitly found the charge under Section 3(1) of the 1989 Act to be proved, thereby usurping the jurisdiction of a criminal Court. The Commission, however, submitted that it had only recommended registration of an FIR after considering the complaint and the material on record.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, noting:

“… although the Commission is empowered to receive complaints, inquire into grievances and take up matters with the concerned authorities for remedial measures, no power or authority is conferred upon it to adjudicate or determine the rights of the parties.”

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mumbai Port Authority v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes, which held that the powers of a civil Court conferred upon the Commission are limited to the matters specifically enumerated.

“Such powers enable the Commission to requisition documents, receive evidence and record factual findings, but do not confer upon it the authority to pass an order in furtherance of such evidence so as to adjudicate the rights of the parties. The role of the Commission, at the highest, remains recommendatory in nature,” the Court remarked.

Hence, the Court held that the Commission passed an order beyond jurisdictional scope as the matter rested with the criminal Court: It observed:

“… the Aayog has exceeded its jurisdiction as it has explicitly stated in the impugned order that charge against the petitioner under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1989 is proved which is perhaps beyond the jurisdictional scope of the Aayog as the same rests with the criminal Court.”

The Court accordingly allowed the writ petition.

Case Title: Mrigesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh [WPC No. 3240 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order