The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a case registered under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act agaisnt a Settlement Officer accused of calling a woman ‘insane Adivasi’.

The High Court mentioned that the caste Adivasi does not find a place in the public notification made by the President of India, and there was no allegation in the FIR that the informant belonged to any of the castes mentioned in part XXII of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, which is applicable to the State of Jharkhand.

The Writ Petition was filed invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the FIR registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which was mentioned as SC/ST Act, 2016 in the formal FIR.

The Single Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary said, “Now coming to the facts of the case, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has used the word that the informant is an insane Adivasi. Now coming to Annexure-9 of this writ petition which is a document of unimpeachable character, being the copy of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in part XXII goes to show that the caste Adivasi does not find place in the said public notification. There is no allegation in the FIR that the informant belongs to any of the castes mentioned in part XXII which is applicable to the State of Jharkhand in the said Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.”

Advocate Chandana Kumari represented the Petitioner while AAG III Ashutosh Anand represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the petitioner, while posted as a settlement officer, was approached by the informant, a lady, with an application under the Right to Information Act. It was alleged that the petitioner became enraged and refused to receive the said application under the Right to Information Act and told the informant that they are insane Adivasis who are coming to annoy.

It was further alleged that the petitioner abused using obscene language, indecent behaviour and also pushed the informant out of his chamber, which humiliated the informant. It was further alleged that many persons were present in the chamber of the settlement officer at the time of the occurrence. The written report was submitted by the informant and the investigation of the case is still going on.

Reasoning

On a conjoint reading of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with Clauses 24 and 25 of the Article 366 of the Constitution of India as well as Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, the Bench said, “...unless the name of the caste or tribe finds place in the public notification made by The President of India, specifying the tribes or tribal community or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal community or castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes; such person cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; as has been referred to in the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or in other words unless the name of castes, races or tribes or tribal community or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal community finds place in the public notification, such person cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”

The allegation against the petitioner was that he had used the word that the informant is an insane Adivasi. Referring to the copy of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in part XXII, the Bench noted that the caste Adivasi does not find a place in the said public notification. There is no allegation in the FIR that the informant belonged to any of the castes mentioned in part XXII, which applies to the State of Jharkhand in the said Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

The Bench further explained, “...in order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the essential ingredients are that the victim must be a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and unless the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe, no offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could be made out and for the same reason, unless the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 could not be made out.”

It was also noticed that the informant had not disclosed anywhere that she belonged to any of the castes, tribes or tribal community as mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as is applicable to the State of Jharkhand and the place of occurrence was in the District of Dumka which comes under the State of Jharkhand. “Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation against the petitioner made in the FIR are considered to be true in its entirety, still, none of the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) or the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not made out; in absence of any material in the record to suggest that the informant is either a person belonging to scheduled caste or a person belonging to scheduled tribe”, it held.

Moreover, no offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code was made out as there was no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner assaulted or used criminal force to the informant, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that it would outrage the modesty of the informant. In the absence of an allegation against the petitioner of obstructing the informant or preventing the informant from proceeding in the direction she has a right to proceed, the Bench stated that no offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code was made out.

Thus, finding that no cognizable offences punishable in law was made out against the petitioner, the Bench said, “...this Court has no hesitation in holding that continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, who is undisputedly a public servant and the occurrence took place when he was discharging his duty as such public servant, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the FIR being Dumka Sadar SC/ST P.S. Case No. 07 of 2023 be quashed and set aside.”

Cause Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:10773)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Chandana Kumari

Respondent: AAG III Ashutosh Anand, AC Binit Chandra, Advocates Sahay Gaurav Piyush, Amrendra Datri

Click here to read/download Order


Jharkhand High CourtJustice Anil Kumar Choudhary

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.