[SC/ST Act] Offence Under Section 3(1)(u) Attracted Only When Committed Against Community's Members 'As a Group': Madras High Court

A careful reading of Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) shows that the legislature has carefully used the words that when 'a member' of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is humiliated with an intent, then the offences under Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3(1) (s) come into play. As far as Section 3 (1) (u) the word used is the 'members of Scheduled caste' and on a clear reading of entire Section 3 (1) (u), it would be clear that when against the members of the Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe, as a group if any person is trying to promote ill feeling or enmity, then only the said offence will come to play. Therefore, I am of the view that Section 3 (1) (u) is not made out.

The petitioner Dr R. Radhakrishnan in the complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC before the Special Court said the head of department in a communication to the university accused him of misbehaving with women students and other misconduct. Seeking an FIR under the SC/ST Act, he argued that Dr Rita John made the allegations against him only because he belongs to the Schedule Caste.

The University, however, did not take any action on Dr John's communication which would show that the allegations were false, and "once the complaint is said to be a false complaint, offences under Sections 3 (1) (u) and 3(1) (zb) are made out", it was argued before the high court.

Section 3 (1) (zb) provides for punishment of a person who accuses a member of SC/ST of practicing witchcraft or being a witch. 

However, the single bench said it was not a case any public notice or insulting the petitioner in public. "The complaint is given to the appropriate authority about the alleged acts of the misdeed," it added.

On the allegation that Dr John in her complaint had claimed that Radhakrishnan has supernatural powers and that he "warned" her that her husband will die in six months if she opposes him, the court said she allegedly only submitted the complaint to the university and same would not amount to an act of physical harm or mental agony on the petitioner "by allegations of practicing witchcraft"

"I am of the view that the allegations mentioned in the complaint does not prima facie constitute criminal offences under Section 3 (1) (u) or 3 (1) (zb) of the Act and accordingly, I am unable to persuade myself to refer the complaint for investigation by the respondent police," said the bench.

Procedure Adopted By Trial Court

The petitioner had also challenged the procedure adopted by the trial court. He submitted that the trial court rejected the petition after recording his sworn statement and without even numbering the petition.

While rejecting the petition, the trial court had also erroneously observed that the petitioner had not filed an affidavit whereas the petitioner had subsequently filed an affidavit, the court was told.

The court agreed with the submission of the petitioner. and observed that since the petitioner had submitted an affidavit at the time of the hearing, the court ought to have numbered the petition.

"If the Trial Court had found that there are prima facie cognizable offences, the Trial Court ought to have referred the complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with an appropriate direction to register the FIR straightaway or to conduct primary enquiry. If the Trial Court had decided to take the case as a private complaint and conduct the enquiry under Sections 200 and 203 Cr.P.C., even then, the criminal miscellaneous petition ought to have been numbered and the procedures have to be taken into a logical conclusion," said the bench.

Case Title: Dr. R Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another

Case No: Crl.R.C.No.1165 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 413

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.S.A.Sathia Chandran

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)