Mere Reference To Scheduled Caste Land Or Status Of Informant Is Insufficient To Attract Provisions Of SC-ST Act: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the impugned cognizance/summoning order passed in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120- B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav held,"As regards invocation of the SC/ST Act, the FIR and chargesheet do not disclose that the alleged acts were committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In light of the ratio laid down in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, mere reference to Scheduled Caste land or status of the informant is insufficient to attract the provisions of the Act."

Advocate Navnath Pandey represented the Appellant while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The allegations had been levelled regarding alleged irregularities in the allotment and subsequent transfer of agricultural land of Chitahera village. It was stated that in 1997, about 282 persons were granted pattas/leases of agricultural land by the competent authority, which were subsequently approved. Later on, complaints were received alleging that some allottees were ineligible and that land so allotted was transferred to private persons by execution of sale deeds through manipulation of revenue records and forged documents. As per the FIR, certain persons, acting in connivance with others, committed forgery in revenue entries, showed enhancement of land area, and transferred land in violation of statutory provisions, thereby causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer and wrongful gain to the beneficiaries.

It was also alleged that in some cases, land meant for members of the Scheduled Caste community was alienated in contravention of law, resulting in the invocation of Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B IPC.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and accompanying material, the Bench noted that the allegations against the appellant were general and omnibus. No specific role, overt act or individual transaction was attributed to the appellant to constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. It was further noticed that the allegations related to alleged irregularities in revenue records, which were the subject matter of civil and revenue adjudication.

The Bench did not find any material indicating dishonest intention at inception or preparation or use of forged documents by the appellant. “This Court also finds that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B IPC are not made out against the appellant”, it stated.

“Record also discloses that investigation carried out in the present matter suffers from grave and fatal irregularities as the Charge sheet dated 06.02.2023 includes various witnesses out of which five witnesses had died years before the investigation commenced and this fact conclusively establishes that the investigation is faulty, unfair, and biased and continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and result in a miscarriage of justice. The Investigating Officer could not have recorded statements of deceased persons, yet these persons are shown as prosecution witnesses, exposing the fabricated nature of the investigation. The inclusion of deceased persons as prosecution witnesses, without any explanation, goes to the root of the matter and reflects non-application of mind during investigation, thereby rendering the investigation unreliable and legally unsustainable", the order read.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the dispute was essentially civil and revenue in nature, and the criminal machinery had been set in motion as an afterthought and as a substitute for appropriate civil remedies, which was impermissible in law. The Bench thus noted that the appellant was not named in the FIR, no specific role or overt act was attributed to him, the dispute was predominantly civil and revenue in nature, the proceedings were initiated after an unexplained and inordinate delay of more than two decades, and the provisions of the SC/ST Act had been invoked without satisfying the mandatory statutory ingredients.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the summoning order.

Cause Title: Maloo v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:229451)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Navnath Pandey, Sukrampal

Respondent: Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order