The Kerala High Court has cautioned against the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), emphasizing that while the law is crucial for protecting marginalized communities from exploitation, false cases should be quashed without hesitation.

The Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen underscored the vital role of courts and investigating agencies in distinguishing genuine cases from false allegations, ensuring that innocent individuals are not wrongly implicated.

"...misuse of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act by litigants having evil or wicked thoughts or being spiteful is the menace now one could notice from various angles. To wit false implication of poor person within the sphere of SC/ST (POA) Act offence with intention to pressurize them with the threat of arrest, detention, and also harsh punishment to settle a score or to compel them to heed for the illegal and illogical demands of the complainant is a tragic aftermath," the Court observed.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, was accused of insulting and intimidating a woman from the Scheduled Caste community by using her caste name in public. Another woman accompanying the petitioner was also named as an accused.

A crime was registered in February 2015, alleging offences under Section 294(b) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST Act. However, the incident allegedly occurred in December 2013, with the complaint being lodged one year and three months later.

Following an investigation, the police initially concluded that the allegations were false and requested case closure. However, after the complainant escalated the matter to the Director General of Police (DGP), further investigation was ordered, leading to a final report that named the petitioner as the sole accused. The petitioner then approached the High Court, challenging the report.

Court's Observations

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the investigation was flawed, conducted without the petitioner’s presence, as she had traveled abroad for work. It was also alleged that the case was fabricated after the complainant failed to recover money from the petitioner through legal channels.

The complainant, on the other hand, contended that a prima facie offence was made out, and the case could not be quashed.

However, after analyzing the case facts, the Court found that the allegations were false and were motivated by a financial dispute rather than actual caste-based discrimination. The Court observed that the first final report was backed by evidence, and no additional proof justified arraying the petitioner as an accused. "Keeping these aspects in mind, scanning the case in toto, it could be gathered that the initial report filed by the Investigating Officer in Annexure A3 is substantiated by materials and no new materials collected during further investigation by the subsequent Investigating Officer, who filed Annexure A1 Final Report. Further, 3rd respondent made the allegation herein in her attempt to get back Rs.6 lakh without opting legal remedies as per law. Thus the allegation are prima facie not believable," it said.

The Court quashed the proceedings, reaffirming that while the SC/ST Act serves a crucial purpose, it should not be weaponized for personal vendettas. The Single-Bench warned that investigating officers must apply their minds before registering cases under the SC/ST Act to prevent wrongful prosecution of innocent individuals.

"So while dealing with cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the investigating agencies and the courts have a very vital role to dissect truth from false and to check fallacy of the allegations. When not accomplishing the aim by lodging complaints in relation to some claims before the police or on getting negative results in litigation or when other pending litigations in between the parties, before raising the allegations as to commission of offence/offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act by one among the parties in rivalry the same is a strong reason to see the falsity of the allegations," the Court observed.

Cause Title: Sobhanakumari v State Of Kerala [Neutral Citation No. 2025:KER:12035]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Madhusudanan P. R., Vijayan Mannaly, Haseena Kunjoonju

Respondent: Advocates Shiras Aliyar, P.M. Mujeeb Rehiman

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice A BadharudeenSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.