SC/ST Act Being Misused For Financial Gains: Allahabad HC Bats For Pre-FIR Assessment Of Credibility Of Complaints

The Court underscored that the misuse of the 1989 law not only harms the credibility of the justice system but also hinders the progress toward achieving genuine equality for those who continue to face prejudice and marginalisation.

In its 8-page order, the Court strongly emphasized the need for a thorough pre-registration verification process. As per the Court's order, this process would require law enforcement agencies to assess the credibility of complaints before filing FIRs, potentially preventing the misuse of the 1989 law.

Further, the Court also opined that maintaining the integrity of the SC/ST Act is essential for preserving its role in protecting the vulnerable and upholding justice.

These observations were made by a bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan while quashing a case under the 1989 Act. In this case, the victim admitted before the Court that he had lodged a false FIR under the pressure of the villagers and that he did not wish to proceed with the case.

In its order, the Court also directed the alleged victim to return Rs. 75,000/—to the accused, which he received as compensation from the state government.

Noting that the Court has identified several cases where false FIRs were lodged with the sole aim of securing such compensation, the single judge also opined that a rigorous verification process must be implemented by the authorities before the lodging of an FIR so that the abuse of the law could be prevented.

The Court further observed that even with such mechanisms in place, if it is discovered that a false FIR has been filed purely for financial gain, the individuals responsible should be held legally accountable.

Importantly, the Court emphasised that to deter the abuse of this special legislation, the courts should invoke the legal recourse available under Section 182 of the IPC [False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person] to hold those persons accountable who file false FIRs solely for the purpose of securing compensation.

Against this backdrop, the Court highlighted that the following measures should be implemented to effectively address the misuse of the SC/ST Act and ensure that its provisions are not exploited:

• First, a thorough pre-registration verification process should be established, requiring law enforcement to assess the credibility of complaints before filing FIRs. This could involve mandatory mediation sessions, where parties can attempt to resolve disputes amicably before resorting to legal action.
• Second, training programs should be conducted for police officers and judicial officials to help them recognize signs of potential misuse and to ensure that they approach cases with sensitivity and awareness of the implications.
• Third, a dedicated oversight body could be established to monitor complaints under the SC/ST Act, investigating patterns of misuse and providing recommendations for action.
• Finally, public awareness campaigns should be launched to educate communities about the Act's purpose and the consequences of filing false claims, thereby fostering a culture of integrity and accountability. These measures would not only help safeguard the Act's integrity but also support genuine victims in receiving the justice they deserve

The Court further directed that a copy of its judgment be circulated to all District Courts so that they can pass appropriate orders in such cases, taking into consideration the reports submitted by Investigating Officers under Section 173(2) CrPC, in accordance with law and also keeping in mind the provisions of Section 182 IPC. 26.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police, UP, to issue a necessary circular to the Police Authorities of the Districts to consider the court's observations regarding the invocation of the provisions of Section 182 IPC (now Section 217 of BNS 2023).

Case title - Vihari And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 589