IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Mohini Biswas – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
C.R.R. No. 2073 of 2022, C.R.A. No. 2 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of proceeding in Special Case No. 25/22 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas and the Charge Sheet being No. 292/22 dated 2/5/2022 under Section 323/341/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of Titagarh P.S. Case No. 172/22 dated 5.3.2022 under Section 341/323/325/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The petitioner’s case is that she is the third wife of Ranajit Das. The complainant herein being the opposite party no. 2 is the first wife of the said Ranajit Das.
3. The present case has been initiated by the first wife of the Ranajit Das wherein it has been alleged as follows:
4. It is further alleged that hearing hue and cry the complainant and witnesses came to the spot and rescued the complainant’s daughter from the clutches of the above named accused person/petitioner herein and thereafter the accused person also allegedly told to the complainant “Tora Nichu Jatir Log besi kotha bolbena, tora nich niche thakbi.” Not only that the accused person allegedly threatened the complainant that she will kidnap the complainant’s daughter and traffic her for prostitution.
5. The State has placed the case diary.
6. Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, lays down as follows:
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:
(a) puts any inedible or obnoxious substance into the mouth of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or forces such member to drink or eat such inedible or obnoxious substance.
(b) dumps excreta, sewage, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in premises, or at the entrance of the premises, occupied by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
(c) with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, dumps excreta, waste matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his neighbourhood.
(d) garlands with footwear or parades naked or semi-naked a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
(e) forcibly commits on a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any act, such as removing clothes from the person, forcible tonsuring of head, removing moustaches, painting face or body or any other similar act, which is derogatory to human dignity.
(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned by, or in the possession of or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, or gets such land transferred.
(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the produce therefrom.
Explanation - For the purposes of clause (f) and this clause, the expression “wrongfully” includes:
(A) against the person's will.
(B) without the person's consent.
(C) with the person's consent, where such consent has been obtained by putting the person, or
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2022 Live Law (SC) 993
Ramgopal & Anr v. State of Madhya Pradesh
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 4 SCC 409
Thermax Limited and Others v. K.M. Johny
Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
The court can quash criminal proceedings under Article 142 if the allegations do not constitute an offence and are primarily private in nature, especially in cases involving caste-based claims.
The court emphasized that criminal proceedings must be quashed if they lack prima facie evidence, preventing abuse of the judicial process.
The court emphasized the need to be extremely circumspect in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act and held that the legislative intent of the Ac....
(1) Offence under SC/ST Act, 1989 can be quashed on the ground of compromise between parties.(2) Powers of Apex Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a....
The main legal point established is that the court can quash criminal proceedings on the basis of a genuine settlement between the parties, especially in cases where the offences are not of a serious....
The SC/ST Act's protective legislative intent underscores that offences must not be quashed based on compromise if it risks undermining legal safeguards against caste-based discrimination.
The High Court retains inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act, even when statutory remedies exist, to prevent abuse of process and secure justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.