Karnataka High Court Criticizes Misuse Of SC/ST Prevention Of Atrocities Act, Quashes Criminal Case Over Property Dispute

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution initiated against two persons under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered by the complainant immediately after the police filed a chargesheet against him on the complaint made by the petitioners, for house trespass and continuous harassment.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Rasik Lal Patel and another said, “This case would form a classic illustration of misuse of the provisions of the Act and the penal provisions under the IPC. It is such cases which clog the criminal justice system and consume considerable time of the Courts, be it the Magistrates Court, Court of Session or this Court, while genuine cases where litigants have actually suffered would be waiting in the pipeline.”

The petitioners had approached the Court seeking to quash the prosecution initiated against them under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), (p), (r), (s) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. It was alleged by the complainant Purushotham that the petitioners had committed forgery, tampering of records of property jointly purchased by his father and uncle and taken over possession.

The petitioners contended that all the transactions had happened between the father of the complainant and the father of the petitioners during their lifetime. The petitioners said they had been in possession of the subject property for the last about 50 years. Properties of the petitioners and properties that have fallen to the share of the father of the complainant abut each other, it was submitted. Further it was argued that the matter is purely civil in nature but is sought to be given a colour of crime.

On considering the records, the bench noted that the complainant had admitted that the subject properties were jointly acquired by V.Muniyappa and his father and they were sold to the father of the petitioners on different dates by three sale deeds. Nonetheless he claimed he is not aware of execution of sale deeds as he was not a party to them.

The moment the charge sheet was filed against the complainant, the impugned complaint springs up alleging several offences, the Court noted at the outset.

Considering the records it said, “It is not one but there are several hues of abuses of the process of law in the case at hand. Knowing fully well that the father of the complainant had sold the properties to the petitioners or the father of the petitioners, the crime comes to be registered contending that he is not aware of the same and, therefore, the documents are forged. All of them are registered public documents pursuant to which the petitioners or their father have been in possession of the properties for the last 50 years. It is ununderstandable as to how a crime could be registered on the aforesaid facts.”

Referring to Sections 465 to 477 which deal with forgery, the bench expressed, “How on earth forgery can now be alleged of public documents that have been in existence for the last 50 years is what becomes ununderstandable. There is no ingredient of any of the offences under Sections 465, 468 or 471 exist in the lis, be it in the complaint or in the summary of the charge sheet.”

Further it said “Section 3(1)(f) directs whoever wrongfully occupies or cultivates the land owned by a Scheduled Caste. The petitioners are in possession of the property for the last 50 years and they are in peaceful enjoyment of their own land. Therefore, they have not wrongfully occupied the land belonging to either member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe – complainant herein.”

As regards application of Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act – hurling of abuses in a public place or in a place of public view, Court said neither ingredient is present in the case at hand as the property of the petitioners and the complainant abut each other.

In regards to application of clauses (r) and (s) the Court said, “They are sought to be pumped into the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for having registered a crime against the complainant in which the Police have filed a charge sheet. Therefore, the provisions under clauses (r) and (s) are only a counter blast to what is aforesaid.”

Further referring to invoking Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, whoever commits any offence against a person or property knowing that it is belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe becomes liable for punishment, the court said, “It is again ununderstandable how the said provision could be invoked, as the complainant in the complaint avers that pursuant to certain sale deeds, the petitioners were put in possession of the property, not today but decades ago. Therefore, the said provision is loosely laid against the petitioners.”

Following which it opined, “On the entire gamut of consideration made hereinabove, what would unmistakably emerge is misuse and abuse of the provisions of the Act. This case forms a classic illustration of scores and scores of cases where the provisions of the Act are misused for ulterior motives or pressurise the accused in collateral proceedings. Therefore, none of the offences either under the IPC or under the Act are present even on their foundational basis, let alone building a castle on such a foundation.”

Thus it held, “In the teeth of aforesaid facts, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would be putting a premium on the abuse of the process of law by the complainant in a manner which on the face of it is civil in nature. If the impugned crime is not a case where a civil proceeding is dressed with a colour of crime, I fail to understand what else it can be.”

Case Title: Rasik Lal Patel & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition no.5497 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 297

Date of Order: 28-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate Irfana Nazeer for Petitioners

HCGP Mahesh Shetty for R1.

Advocate Bharath Prakash G for R2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order