'SC/ST Act Misused For Personal Vendetta': Allahabad HC Quashes 'Counterblast' FIR Lodged Against A Couple By Govt Servant

“This Court will be failing in its duty, if such kind of activities are allowed to take place in the State of U.P. by none other than the government servant. Here the connivance of land mafias, the Revenue Officers and the then S.H.O. seems to be playing a major role, wherein a couple has wrongly been implicated in the criminal proceedings and they have been forced to run from pillar to post,” a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar observed as it allowed a quashing plea filed by one Alka Sethi and her husband (Dhruv Sethi).

The case in brief

According to the allegations against the applicants, the informant, a Lekhpal (opposite party no. 5), was inspecting Khashra numbers on a village road in Satpura when the applicant and his wife confronted him.

The couple allegedly used abusive, caste-related language and threatened to implicate him in false cases of misbehaving with the applicant's wife and corruption if he did not comply with their demands.

The applicant also detained the informant, who was released following the intervention of the Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Biharigarh.

Subsequently, the Lekhpal concerned lodged an F.I.R. under sections 332, 353, 389, 504 I.P.C. read with section 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the applicants

Challenging entire criminal proceedings as well the impugned summoning and cognizance order passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur and the impugned charge-sheet, the Applicants moved the Court.

The applicants argued that applicant No. 2 (Dhruv Sethi) had purchased a piece of land and, after mutation, applied for demarcation. Despite the order of demarcation, the revenue officers did not carry it out for the reasons best known to them.

Essentially, Opposite Party No. 5 was not carrying out the demarcation, and for that, he made the applicants run from pillar to post. When pressure was exerted upon him, he assured that the demarcation would be carried out in front of the parties. But shockingly, he started demarcating behind the backs of applicants. When this was objected to, a scuffle broke out.

Thereafter, when the opposite party, No. 5, learned that the applicants were about to lodge an FIR against him, he lodged the instant FIR against the applicants as a counterblast.

The counsel for the applicants further submits that the local land mafia, having influence in that area and also over the revenue, as well as the local police official, hatched a conspiracy and wanted to grab the land of the applicants, for which they were regularly torturing the applicants and the instant FIR was a result of the same.

To show their bonafide, the applicants submitted that they had lodged an F.I.R. against the miscreants in Case Crime No. 121 and Case Crime No. 138 (May 2022) and that they had moved the complaint on IGRS/Dashboard in August 2022 and January 2023 for appropriate action against the miscreants.

It was further argued that the applicant was unaware of the caste of the opposite party no. 5, and neither had they stated any caste-related word. Without knowledge of his caste, there was no occasion for the applicant to have made caste-related comments 5 against the opposite party no. 5.

Court's observations

At the outset, noting that the 1989 Act had been promulgated for a very specific reason, the Court said that “shockingly,” the Provisions of this Act had been misused and abused by some people for personal vendettas, personal interests, or to protect themselves from the rigours of the law.

Examining the facts of the case, the Court opined that the impugned FIR was nothing but a counterblast to the earlier proceedings and just to ensure that the applicants do not lodge the complaint against the opposite party No. 5.

The Court further observed that allegations that the applicant had tied down the revenue officer and was released when the Senior Officers came to the spot was “quite unbelievable”, as the Court wondered how a man and a lady could overpower so many people and tie them up and detain them till the intervention of the Senior Officers.

The Court emphasised that it was a clear misuse and abuse of the process of law as there was not even a single iota of evidence to show that the applicants were aware of the Caste of the opposite party No. 5. In the absence of knowing the same, the Court added, it was hard to believe that the applicants had used caste-related words against the opposite party No. 5.

“Whereas there is no evidence to show that the offence as alleged to have been committed, was committed on the ground, that the victim/opposite party No. 5 was the member of the scheduled Caste…until it is proved that the applicants are aware of the Caste of the victim, there is no occasion for him to make such a comment, or even if made, it would be unintentional, and hence the same would not fall under the offence under 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act” the Court further remarked.

Consequently, the court allowed the petition, stressing that the plain reading of the FIR did not prima facie constitute an offence.

Further, the Court directed the DGP to get the FIRs lodged by the applicants and investigated by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police and to complete the probe within 4 months.

Case title - Alka Sethi And Another vs. State Of Up And 4 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 332

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 332

Click Here ToRead/Download Order