Filing False Suit With Forged Documents Against SC/ST Person Prima Facie Attracts Offence Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would be prima facie attracted when it is prima facie established that a false suit using a forged document was filed by a non-member against a member of the community.Justice A. Badharudeen observed:“when it is prima facie established that the suit filed…is one in the category of false, malicious or vexatious one, particularly using a forged suit document, when the defendants therein are members of the Scheduled Caste and the plaintiffs therein are not members of Scheduled Caste, the offence unader Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act would attract prima facie.”The Court also held that a kuri company instituting a suit against its subscriber can be presumed to be aware of the defendant's caste identity as per Section 8 of the Act since the company dealt with its subscribers after making acquaintance with them.“When a kuri company engaged in chitty business, after making acquaintance with subscribers, dealt with subscribers for its kuri transactions and thereafter institutes suits for realisation of the amount due under the kuri transactions, based on an alleged forged promissory note, the kuri company could not be held as a person who did not know the caste identity of the defendants in the suit, especially when knowledge regarding the caste identity of the accused is a matter of presumption, unless the contrary is proved by evidence,” the Court remarked.The facts of the case are that a chitty company, through its Managing Director, filed a suit for recovery of amounts from a subscriber of a chitty. The company had produced a promissory note, which was allegedly executed by the said subscriber and his father.The subscriber filed written statement contending that the promissory note was a forged document and this led to the company to immediately withdraw the suit. At this time, the subscriber, a member of the SC/ST community preferred the complaint against the company's Managing Director.A crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution allegation was that the accused filed a false, frivolous suit against the defendant/complainant using a forged promissory note. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer filed a report before the Special Court to delete the offences under the SC/ST Act stating that the investigation revealed that the suit was filed by the accused without being aware of the caste identity of the complainant. The complainant filed a petition before the Special Court for monitoring the investigation but the same was dismissed. In the dismissal order, the Special Court mentioned that the complainant's petition has become infructuous since there is no impediment to transfer the case records to the Magistrate Court in view of the afore report of the Investigating Officer.Aggrieved by the dismissal, the complainant has come before the High Court appealing against the order. The complainant argued that the afore report ought not to have been accepted by the Special Court. He contended that in order to determine whether the suit was false, malicious or vexatious, an expert must compare the accused's signature with that in the forged promissory note.The accused defended the impugned order wherein there was a deemed acceptance of the Investigating Officer's report. The public prosecutor also submitted that a kuri company could not be adjudged as a person aware of the complainant's caste identity.The Court opined that knowledge of caste identity of a complainant is a statutory presumption, which has to be rebutted with evidence during trial. It also felt that the kuri company, which interacted with its subscribers and instituted a suit against the complainant, cannot be held as a person unaware of caste identity of the defendants in the suit.Thus, the Court thought it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order in which there was deemed acceptance of the investigating officer's report. However, the Court refused to interfere with the finding that the Special Court need not monitor the investigation.The Court then directed the investigating officer to investigate the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Act after getting the promissory note submitted before the Court and getting an expert opinion was to whether the signatures of the complainant and his father was forged. The investigating officer is to then file a final report along with the expert report.Case No: Crl.A No. 2214 of 2025 Case Title: Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 85Counsel for the appellant: Manumon A., Rebin Vincent Gralan, Manoj Krishnan K., Suresh C., Edathara Vineeta Krishnan, Rosna M. Joy, Gayathri E.S., Avin Krishna M.P., Athira Suresh, John Christo T.P., Akshay Kumar C.S., Liniya Loveson, Anjali...

Filing False Suit With Forged Documents Against SC/ST Person Prima Facie Attracts Offence Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags