SC/ST Act Designed To Safeguard Marginalized Communities, Not Score-Settling Persecution: Jharkhand High Court

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the case, pointed out a contradiction in the statements made by the complainant and his wife regarding the alleged use of derogatory terms against the complainant. While the complainant claimed that the accused used the term 'Adivasi,' another witness stated that the term used was 'Harijan.' The Court stressed that the SC/ST Act is designed to protect marginalized sections of society and should not be misused for settling personal disputes.

Justice Choudhary held, “In the present case the place of occurrence has been said to be the ‘house premise’ of the complainant in para 14 of the complaint petition. During inquiry the complainant, his wife and another witness has been examined. What were the words used in calling the caste name of the Complainant is in cloud. Contrary to the statement of the Complainant and his wife (EW-1) , EW 2 has stated that the accused persons had called the caste name as ‘Harijan’ and not the expression of ‘Adivasi’ as stated by the Complainant and his wife.”

“The special law of SC/ST Act has been enacted to protect the interest of the marginalized section of the Society and it is not intended to be used as an instrument of persecution to settle scores,” Justice Choudhary added

It was pointed out by the Court that there was contradiction in the statement made by the complainant and his wife regarding the use of expression of insinuation against the Complainant by the petitioners.

The Court's order comes in response to a case challenging the order of a Special Judge in Dhanbad who had taken cognizance of a case registered under Sections 323, 451, 506, and 120B of IPC and Sections 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

The case revolved around a land dispute, with the complainant asserting his ownership of a 10 katha piece of land in District Dhanbad through registered sale deeds in 2001 and 2005. Subsequently, the land was mutated in his wife's name. However, the land was sold to one of the petitioners in 2006 via power of attorney.

Allegations were made that the petitioners were attempting to dispossess the complainant, even resorting to demolishing a portion of his boundary wall and planting explosive substances in his gate to intimidate him. Possession of the land was declared in favor of the complainant's wife under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The petitioners were accused of shouting derogatory remarks about the complainant's caste like, “Sala Adiwasi Hum logon Ka Baat Nahi Manta Hai...” and manhandling him. Upon inquiry, the court found a prima facie case and issued summonses.

The High Court noted that the petitioners argued that the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act were being misused by the complainant to settle personal disputes. They presented evidence that the complainant had previously filed a case under the Explosive Substances Act against one of the petitioners, which had reached the final stage and had its revision rejected.

Furthermore, the Court noted that a previous SC/ST Act case filed by the complainant against a third party had not proceeded due to his inability to produce a caste certificate.

The court concluded that the present case was an instance of malicious prosecution and that continuing the prosecution under the SC/ST Act would amount to an abuse of the court's process. The court allowed the petition and quashed the cognizance of the offense.

Counsels For the Petitioners : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, Advocate

Counsels For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, S.P.P.

Counsels For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 50

Case Title: Nayan Prakash Singh @ Narayan Prakash Singh and Others vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another

Case No.: Cr. M. P. No. 2596 of 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order