Be Vigilant Before Invoking Stringent Laws Like SC-ST Act : Supreme Court 'Reminds' Police Officers

The Supreme Court observed that the police officers have to be vigilant before invoking provisions of stringent laws like SC-ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act.

The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.

The court clarified that these observations are made not to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.

In this case, an FIR was registered against the accused invoking provisions of SC-ST Act on the basis of complaint made against him. As the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the FIR, the accused had approached the Apex Court.

Perusing the complaint and FIR, the bench noted that even if the allegations are taken to be true on their face value, it is not discernible that any offence can be said to have been made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. The complaint and FIR are frivolous, vexatious and oppressive, it said.

"This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.", the bench observed while allowing the appeal.

The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by one Gulam Mustafa, a Managing Director of a construction company, challenging the FIR registered on a complaint filed by one Venkatesh. The petitioner argued that the complaint was filed after the company entered into a joint development agreement relating to a property and that the dispute was essentially civil in nature. It was alleged that the complaint was filed taking advantage of the similarity in the old survey number of his land with the new survey number of the land involved.

The Court noted that there were civil litigations pending on the issue and that the sequence of events showed that "malafide appears writ large".

Noting that the dispute was raised only after the land was developed and apartments were sold to other allotees, the bench noted :

"This itself indicates a lack of bonafide. We have mused as to why the complainant and her family members if the land was theirs, would sit by and watch on as fence-sitters for a long period of time".

Case details

Sri Gulam Mustafa vs State of Karnataka | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421 | CrA 1452 OF 2023 | 10 May 2023 | Justices Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah

Headnotes

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 482 - Where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, 25 we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. (Para 36)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment