Karnataka High Court Expresses Concern Over 'Haystack Of Frivolous Cases' Under SC/ST Act, Asks Police To Verify Allegations While Registering Crime

The Karnataka High Court recently while quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against a school headmaster under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by a school teacher, observed,

“Haystack of frivolous cases have mushroomed to a large extent that searching a genuine case in the haystack has become like searching for a needle in a haystack, as most the cases are in abuse and misuse of the process of law, like the kind in hand.”

Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a petition filed by one Shivalingappa B Kerakalamatti and said, “It is therefore necessary for every Officer who would institute a crime based on any complaint to be vigilant in registering such crimes without appropriate verification. The case at hand should become an eye opener to the Officers who would seek to register crimes on such allegations.”

Further the court directed the State government to recover the amount of Rs.1,50,000, paid by the Social Welfare Department to aid the litigant for prosecuting the impugned proceedings.

The petitioner was charged for offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It was alleged that when complainant Chandru Rathod was on his way to work, the petitioner along with two others stopped him and hurled caste abuses at him, assaulted him with a cycle chain.

Petitioner argued that the complaint is in the habit of registering frivolous complaints misusing the provisions of the SC/St Act and seeking assistance from the State Government in order to generate money out of public funds.

The prosecution though opposed the plea on the ground that charge sheet has been filed, submitted that the Police in another complaint have filed ‘B’ report and in filing ‘B’ report they have observed that the complainant is habitual in registering frivolous complaints.

Contradictory Statements By Complainant

The bench went through the records and noted that summary of chargesheet does not indicate where and when the abuses were hurled and where the complainant was stopped from moving in any direction for it to become an offence under Section 341 of the IPC. It also noted inconsistency in complainant's statement inasmuch as in one statement he claimed there was nobody else except the petitioner at the scene of crime, whereas in the complaint he said petitioner was accompanied by two people.

Court also referred to the medical records of the complainant and noted no injuries were seen. Rather, he was treated in OPD and sent away.

No Intention Of Petitioner To Commit Crime

Further holding that Sections 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act clearly mandate that there should be intention to insult, the court said,

“In the facts of the case the happenings of the alleged incident in a public place or in a place of public view is doubtful nor there was any deliberate intention to malign the complainant taking the name of his caste. In the absence of all these ingredients and the judgment of the Apex Court, permitting further proceedings would become a repeated abuse of the process of law.”

Complainant Habitual Offender

Court also noted that the complainant had registered an identical complaint against the petitioner before another Police Station which was quashed as being 'frivolous'. It noted witnesses in that case and instant case are same.

"Therefore, it can be inferred without a shadow of doubt, that the complainant, is a habitual complainant and has stock witnesses with him to depose on all the complaints that he registers. If this cannot be construed as an abuse of the process of law or misuse of the provisions of the Act, I fail to understand what else can be,” Court said.

Complainant Misused Public Funds

Court was also shocked to note that every time the complainant registered a complaint against the petitioner, he approached the Social Welfare Department and claimed aid for continuing the litigation.

"For three crimes he has registered against the petitioner, all for the same offences and all within a span of one year, legal aid of `3,50,000, is paid to the complainant by the Social Welfare Department. This is paid out of public money, all in aid to register frivolous cases or frivolous cases being fought with the aid of the Government.”

The bench opined “It is for this reason that genuine cases of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who would actually suffer abuses, are lost in the multitude of such frivolous cases.”

Court suggested it is necessary for the State to scrutinise the papers before grant of any aid, so that the amount is spent upon cases where members belonging to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe, who actually suffer abuses are given such aid, and not such frivolous litigants. "If no direction of the kind is issued it would amount to putting a premium on the frivolous litigative persistence of the complainant,” it said.

Appearance: Advocate Avinash M. Angadi, for petitioner.

Additional Government Advocate Madanmohan M. Khannur for R1.

Advocate D.M.Malli, for R2.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 407

Case Title: Shivalingappa B. Kerakalamatti And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100396 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order