The court ruled that allegations under the SC/ST Act must not be based on malafide intentions, emphasizing the need to prevent misuse of protective legislation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the appellant(s) in both the criminal appeals and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Special P.P. for the State duly assisted by Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

2. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as it took its shape from the same impugned judgment.

3. Both these appeals are being preferred for quashing the impugned order dated 16.03.2020 passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya in connection with S.C. & S.T. P.S. Case No. 45/2019, whereby and whereunder learned court, after differing with the charge-sheet submitted by the police vide charge-sheet No. 01/2020, pleased to take cognizance against the appellant(s) namely, Satyendra Prasad Yadav and Dr. Nisha Peshin for the offence under Section 354, 354(D)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(h)(j)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) and ordered for issuance of summon, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya.

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that one Sita Devi filed a complaint petition on 15.06.2019 being Complaint Case No. 56/2019, alleging therein that she was working as Aaya in the school. She stated that on 12.09.2017, Satyendra Prasad Yadav had joined in the school as Headmaster and thereafter created an atmosphere of castism and she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment. Satyendra Prasad Yadav (appellant) tried to terrorize her and influenced her to come at his residence and had behaved with her in very derogatory manner. Anyhow, she managed to escape from there. The informant further alleged that Satyendra Prasad Yadav (appellant) had pressurized her to clean the toilet and abused her by calling her caste name. The informant further complained about the behaviour with respect to appellant namely, Dr. Nisha Peshin as she said to her to obey the orders of the appellant namely, Satyendra Prasad Yadav.

5. On the basis of aforesaid complaint of the complainant/informant, the aforesaid complaint case has been filed. Thereafter, learned Special Judge vide memo No. 349 dated 01.08.2019 forwarded the copy of complaint petition to the SC/ST Police Station for registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. On the basis of the order of learned Special Judge, SC/ST P.S. Case No. 45/2019 dated 21.11.2019 for the offence under Section 354, 341, 504, 506/34 of the I.P.C. and 3(i)(r)(s)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act was registered and thereafter investigation was proceeded accordingly.

6. The investigating Officer as well as supervising authority, after investigation, submitted final report No. 01/2020 dated 20.01.2020 and stated that the case found false. A copy of final report is annexed herewith as Annexure ‘8’ to the present memo of appeal. By differing with the aforesaid final report of the investigating officer, the learned court i.e. Special Judge, SC/ST, Gaya has been pleased to take cognizance against both the appellants.

7. Hence, the present appeal.

8. It is submitted by Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) that the present case is the glaring example that how the provisions of SC/ST Act and also the provision related with crime against women are being misused in our society, which, otherwise, was intended to legislate to protect the downtrodden and depressed people of the society. With aforesaid note, it is submitted by learned counsel that the present complaint case, which is the basis of FIR i.e. Gaya P.S. Case No. 45/2019 dated 21.11.2019 was lodged with malafide intention and ulterior motive, where the appellant being headmaster of the school initiated the verification process of School Leaving Certificate (in short ‘SLC’) of the complainant who was working as Class IVth employee in school. In this context, it is submitted that appellant being headmaster of the DAV Public School, Sh