Scrutiny of FIRs Under SC/ST Act

CASE NAME: Sunil Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.

CASE NUMBER: W.P. (Cr.) No. 1146 of 2023

DATE: 8 April, 2025

QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner is a settlement officer at Dumka, Jharkhand approached the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 of the Indian constitution seeking quashing of an FIR registered as Dumka Sadar SC/ST. The FIR was filed in respect of the offences withing the meaning of Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( which was erroneously described as SC/ST Act, 2016 in the F.I.R).

The complainant, i.e., Respondent No.4,  filed the current F.I.R as she faced abuse when she went to confront the petitioner with an RTI application. The accused hurled caste-based abuses at her by calling her an “insane Adivasi,” and further used abusive language and also pushed her out of his room. On the basis of her complaint, the FIR was filed.

The petitioner argued that the caste of the informant (“Adivasi”) had not been notified under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as it applied to Jharkhand. The ingredients required to form offences under the SC/ST Act were thus missing.

 

ISSUES

1. Whether facts stated in the FIR formed a prima facie case for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989?
2. Whether the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, and 354 of IPC were established?
3. Whether continuance of criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process of law?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution of India – Articles 341, 342, and 366 (Definitions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 2(c), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, and 506 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 (Inherent powers of the High Court)

 

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS

The petitioner contended that:

 

1. It is pertinent to note that the caste “Adivasi” of informant is not referred to in list of Jharkhand Scheduled Tribes in Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.
2. The ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act were not met based on the evidence submitted before this Hon’ble Court.
3. No caste based or obscene slur attracting within the scope of Sections 3(1)(r) or (s) was used.
4. There is no “SC/ST Act, 2016”, which renders FIR and the charges framed within irrelevant.
5. No such claims were implied with the intent to outrage the modesty of the informant, the necessity for which is for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
6. Allegations under Sections 341, 323, 504, and 506 IPC were neither made out nor cognizable offences.
7. FIR was arbitrarily registered to prejudice the petitioner’s career.

 

RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS

The State and Respondent No.4 resisted the writ petition, contending:

1. The writ petition was premature since investigation was ongoing.
2. FIR revealed commission of cognizable offences.
3. The argument that the informant’s caste was beyond the preview of the SC/ST Act could not be determined at this stage.
4. The writ petition was without substance and stood chances of being rejected.

 

ANALYSIS

The Court was very careful while examining the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution and Section 2(c) of SC/ST Act, 1989. The Court put great stress on the fact that unless a caste or tribe is duly notified by the President of India by way of public notification, no one can claim protection under the SC/ST Act.

On consideration of Annexure-9 (Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 for the State of Jharkhand), the Court held that “Adivasi” was not a notified Scheduled Tribe for the State of Jharkhand.

Therefore, even if the contents of the FIR were accepted in totality, the offenses under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not established.

Under Section 354 IPC, the Court noted the absence of any intention to outrage the modesty of the informant. Similarly, in the case of Section 341 IPC, no case of wrongful restraint was established. The Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC charges were minor and non-cognizable and hence of no consequence for the purposes of quashing.

The Court also held that wrongful insistence on continuation of the proceedings against a public servant in such a case constituted abuse of process of law.

 

JUDGEMENT

High Court of Justice quashed and set aside the FIR being Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023. Writ petition was granted. Interim relief already granted was dissolved, and the Registry was ordered to report to the concerned court forthwith.

 

CONCLUSION

This case reiterates that proceedings on the basis of flawed and unsustainable allegations, particularly where material statutory ingredients are absent, must be quashed at the gates to avoid harassment and abuse of criminal law machinery. The Court reasserted the doctrine that allegations have to be examined with respect to statutory requirements and constitutional imperatives to avoid miscarriage of justice.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY LALITHA SASANKA G