SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Sunil Kumar, son of late H.N. Singh Yadav - Petitioner 
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents 
W.P. (Cr.) No. 1146 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III : Mr. Binit Chandra, AC to AAG III
For the Respondent:Mr. Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Advocate:Mr. Amrendra Datri, Advocate

The court ruled that without the informant being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, no offences under the SC/ST Act can be established, leading to the quashing of the FIR.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 2(c), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - Writ petition to quash FIR for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act - Allegations of abuse and indecent behavior by a public servant - Court found that the informant did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe as defined under the Act, thus no offence made out - FIR quashed. (Paras 1-32)

(B) Legal principles - The essential requirement for offences under the SC/ST Act is that the victim must be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe - The absence of such status negates the applicability of the Act. (Paras 21-24)

(C) The FIR cannot be maintained if it cites a non-existent statute, such as SC/ST Act, 2016. (Paras 7, 25)

(D) The allegations under IPC Sections 354, 341, 504, 506, and 323 were also found to be unsubstantiated. (Paras 8-10, 26-30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a public servant, allegedly abused and pushed the informant, who approached him under the Right to Information Act. The informant claimed to be an Adivasi, but this caste is not recognized under the SC/ST Act.

Findings of Court:
The court held that no cognizable offences were made out against the petitioner, and the FIR was quashed to prevent abuse of process.

Issues: Whether the informant qualifies as a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, and whether the allegations constitute cognizable offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without the informant being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the offences under the SC/ST Act cannot be established.

Result: FIR quashed and writ petition allowed.

By the Court:-

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the FIR being Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023 dated 19.10.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which has been mentioned as SC/ST Act, 2016 in the formal FIR as well as the endorsement regarding registration of the case made on the FIR by the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned SC/ST police station.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while posted as settlement officer was approached by the informant- respondent no.4 lady with an application under Right to Information Act. It is alleged that the petitioner became enraged and refused to receive the said application under the Right to Information Act and told informant-respondent no.4 that they are insane Adivasis and they are coming to annoy and thereafter abused using obscene language and indecent behaviour and pushed the informant-respondent no.4 out of his chamber which humiliated the informant-respondent no.4. It is further alleged that many persons were present in the chamber of the settlement officer at the time of occurrence.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by the informant-respondent no.4, registered Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023 and took up investigation of the case and it is submitted at the Bar that the investigation of the case is still going on.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to Section 2 (c) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Clauses 24 and 25 of Article 366 of the Constitution of India and also Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India that conjoint reading of the same goes to show that only the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Article 342 of the Constitution of India can be termed as Scheduled Tribes and those castes which has been mentioned in Article 341 of the Constitution of India can be termed as Scheduled Castes within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only caste which has been stated in the FIR is “Adivasi”.

6. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-9 which is the copy of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 at page no. 75 of the brief which is part XXII relating to Jharkhand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that caste Adivasi has not been included in part XXII of the said Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and undisputedly, as the occurrence took place in the District of Dumka, which is within the State of Jharkhand and the only caste name that cropped up from the FIR is that the informant is a Adivasi but the caste Adivasi does not come under the ambit of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes mentioned in Section 2 (c) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 hence, the sine-qua-non to constitute the offence under Section 2 (1) (r) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; that the victim must be a member of schedule caste or a schedule tribe, is lacking so even if the entire allegation made in the FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top