The Supreme Court reiterated that merely because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground for prosecution under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Telangana High Court whereby the Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) preferred by Respondents-Accused in a case registered under Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (SC/ST Act) was allowed by quashing the said proceedings against them.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “Perusal of the complaint would also indicate that the grievance was not really relatable to the false and malicious involvement in the criminal proceedings against the Appellant and his family members because of them belonging to Scheduled Caste. The very intent being absent, the offences for which the prosecution has been launched are not made out.”

“For attracting the offences, as alleged to have been committed by the private respondents, specific instances and incidents supported by evidence are required to be present, which is missing in this case”, it added.

Advocate R. Chandrachud represented the Appellant while Advocate Selvam P represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case originates from a land allotment dispute in Duvva village, where the Appellant herein alleged that Respondent 2, who was the Mandal Revenue Officer and Accused 3, the proprietor of Ramakrishna Cine Theatre of the same village, manipulated the allotment of two plots to the upper caste individuals related to him, earmarked for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe beneficiaries. This allotment was objected to by the Appellant, which is alleged to have led to his false implication in a criminal case as part of a conspiracy in retaliation for the action initiated against Respondent 2, following the Appellant's complaint regarding the wrongful allotment of the plots.

After the Appellant was declared innocent and the prosecution was withdrawn, a complaint was filed by the Appellant against the Respondents, along with Accused 3. It was alleged that at the behest of the second Respondent, who bore a grudge against the Appellant, as well as Accused 3, whose relatives were the beneficiaries of such allotment, all three implicated the Appellant and his brother. Allegations regarding humiliation, harassment and the commission of offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were made. The Case was committed to the Special Court. The High Court proceeded to allow the petition so preferred, by quashing the proceedings, which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted that the first Accused had expired and vide an order, the name of the first Respondent was deleted from the array of parties at the request of the Appellant and upon his application.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution initiated against the private respondents was based upon a complaint filed by the Appellant on the dropping of and the withdrawal from prosecution in criminal case qua him. It was at that stage that the allegations of mala fide and wrongful prosecution at the behest of Respondent 2, the MRO, and Accused 3, proprietor of Ramakrishna Theatre was made. The first Respondent falsely implicated the Appellant and his younger brother as an accused in the rioting case relating to the clash between two groups belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

It was noticed that the allotment made by the second Respondent was as per the government instructions and the cancellation of allotment had taken place. Therefore, there was no reason as to why the second Respondent would proceed to malafidely involve the Appellant and his family in the case. Reference was also made to the judgment in n Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra (2000) where the Court has emphasized that merely because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground for prosecution.

“...since it was admittedly a dispute between two groups belonging to the Scheduled Caste, and the clash was not with any other community, rather intra-caste, involvement of the Appellant because of him being a Scheduled Caste in the criminal case does not arise, what to say of mala fide. No evidence has been brought on record which would indicate mala fide intention on the part of Respondent No. 2 or any connivance. The bald allegations against the Appellant would not in itself be sustainable”, it held.

Thus, upholding the judgment of the High Court, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Konde Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra Murty & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 886)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates R. Chandrachud, Ramesh Allanki, AOR Aruna Gupta, Advocate Syed Ahmad Naqvi

Respondent: Advocate Selvam P, AOR S. Gowthaman, Advocate Prerna Singh, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocates Dhruv Yadav, Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali

Click here to read/download Judgment





Chief Justice of India B. R. GavaiJustice Augustine George Masih

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.