1. Private complaint filed under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, alleging unlawful encroachment and construction. (Para 2 )
2023 Supreme(SC) 12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
B. Venkateswaran & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
P. Bakthavatchalam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1555 of 2022 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 3411/2021)
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Important Points
Civil dispute between parties cannot be converted into criminal proceedings.
Subject
Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Act Referred
Headnote
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Alleged interference with right of enjoyment on property – Quashing petition – Private civil dispute between parties is converted into criminal proceedings – Initiation of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is nothing but abuse of process of law and Court – No case for offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, even prima facie – None of ingredients of Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are made out and/ or satisfied – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court dismissing writ petition quashed and set aside – Criminal proceedings initiated against appellants by respondent herein-original complainant for offence under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 including summons issued by Special Court in a private complaint filed by respondent quashed and set aside. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal (OP) No.33505 of 2019, by which, the High Court has dismissed petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the private respondent herein, initiated against petitioners for the offence under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accused have preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings initiated against appellants deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
For the Appellant(s) : D. Durga Devi, Adv. Sharath Chandran, Adv. Mr. Pranab Prakash, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Respondent-in-person
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending the dispute was civil and lacked statutory ingredients of the Atrocities Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The court found the dispute was a civil matter converted into a criminal case, lacking evidence that the complainant was targeted due to their SC/ST status. (Para 3 )
4. Criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are unsustainable if they stem from civil disputes lacking specific statutory ingredients. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; the High Court order is set aside and criminal proceedings, including summons, are quashed. (Para 4 )
6. Can a civil dispute be prosecuted under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
No, converting a private civil dispute into criminal proceedings under the Act without satisfying the necessary statutory ingredients constitutes an abuse of the process of law and the court. (Para 3 )
7. What constitutes a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
A prima facie case requires allegations that the complainant was obstructed or interfered with deliberately and willfully, with the knowledge that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras in Criminal (OP) No.33505 of 2019, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the private respondent herein, initiated against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the accused have preferred present appeal.
2. That the private respondent herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for alleged offence under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alleging inter alia that the petitioners herein – original accused have conspired and unlawfully encroached the pathway adjacent to his house and started to construct temple. It was alleged that the said temple was built up on the complainant water pipeline, Sewage Pipeline and EB cable and thereby caused obstructions to him to enjoy his property. Therefore, it was alleged that even after order passed by the High Court, the accused persons did not stop the illegal construction and thereby committed atrocities on the peaceful living of his family. It was further alleged that the accused persons prevented the complainant from putting up further construction on his building and also criminally intimidated. That the Special Court after receipt of the complaint, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also examined the witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who were produced by the complainant and thereafter took cognizance of the case under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and issued summons to the accused persons. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the summons issued by the learned Special Court, the accused persons filed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against them. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said application and has refused to quash the criminal proceedings. Hence, present appeal at the instance of the original accused.
3. We have heard Shri Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the appellants – original accused and the respondent appearing in person. We have also gone through the complaint and considered the allegations in the complaint made against the accused. Having considered the allegations in the complaint and the material on record, it appears that initiation of the criminal proceedings by the respondent against the appellants – original accused for the offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the court and also provision of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It appears that a private dispute was going on between the parties with respect to the illegal construction. As per the allegations in the complaint, the original complainant had purchased the vacant land and constructed the building. It is alleged that adjacent to his house and on the common pathway, the accused have unlawfully encroached upon the pathway and started constructing the temple and thereby have put up illegal construction on his water pipeline, sewage pipeline and EB Cable. In the entire complaint, there are no allegations that the complainant is obstructed and/or interfered with enjoyment of his right on his property deliberately and willfully knowing that complainant belongs to SC/ST. From t