POA Holder Had No Express Authorisation: Bombay High Court Dismisses Complaint Under SC-ST Act As It Was Not Filed 'By' Victim
The Court clarified the legal distinction between acting "by" and "on behalf of" regarding complaints for illegal tribal land alienation.
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench has quashed a criminal proceeding under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 finding that the complaint was not filed "by" the victim but by a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder. The Court observed that findings under the Act are not "rem" but are constituted based on specific acts against protected members.
The Court noted that for a representative to act "on behalf of" a tribal victim in criminal litigation, there must be a clearly defined agency relationship. Without specific authorisation in a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to file criminal complaints, a third party lacks the locus standi to set the wheel of criminal law in motion under the protective scheme of the Act.
Justice Y. G. Khobragade observed, “…as per the power of attorney, it does not appear that the present respondent No.2 / complainant is authorised to file criminal complaint on behalf of Fakiri Kisan Gangave, the member of tribal community. Therefore, to my mind, the present respondent / complainant is having no locus to file such complaint… as per the scheme of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the said findings are constituted against the non scheduled caste or scheduled tribe person if any act which is provided under Section 3 of the Act is done by the member of other community than the scheduled castes / scheduled tribes. Therefore, the said findings are not ‘rem’”.
Advocate Shaikh Ashraf Patel appeared for the appellants and S. S. Dande, APP appeared for the respondent.
The brief facts of the case involve a land dispute concerning 25 Acres and 25 Gunthas at village Waluj, belonging to Fakiri Kisan Gangave, a member of a Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No. 2, claiming to be the GPA holder for Gangave, alleged that the Appellants conspired with revenue officials to create fabricated sale deeds and encroach upon the land in violation of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It was alleged that these actions constituted offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Atrocities Act.
Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal case before the Special Court (SC & ST Act) at Aurangabad. On May 16, 2025, the Special Court issued process against the Appellants, and then the Appellants challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the complainant lacked the locus to file the case and that the land was not actually tribal land.
Referring to legal dictionaries, the Court noted that the word "By" denotes the person acting is the "immediate agent," whereas "on behalf of" implies a representation for another. Since the GPA did not authorise the filing of criminal complaints, Respondent No. 2 had no locus.
Furthermore, an investigation report under Section 202 of the CrPC revealed that the land was registered as "Class-1" land in revenue records and did not require Collector's permission for sale, thereby failing to meet the ingredients of the alleged offenses.
“…respondent No.2 has not brought any substantial material on record to show that the land which is subject matter of the complaint is prohibited under Section 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Therefore, to my view, the offence under Section 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) does not constitute. However, the learned trial Court overlooked the provisions of law as well as the contents of the complaint, passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside”, the Bench noted.
The Court, thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated May 16, 2025. The original complaint was dismissed, and the Bench directed that the fees for the appointed legal aid counsel for Respondent No. 2 be quantified and paid as per the rules.
Cause Title: Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:18086)
Appearances:
Appellants: Shaikh Ashraf Patel, Advocate.
Respondents: S. S. Dande, APP, U. L. Telgaonkar, Advocate.