The Allahabad High Court quashed a summoning order, holding that mere reference to Scheduled Caste land or the informant’s caste status does not attract the SC/ST Act, especially in the absence of caste-based intent and amid serious investigation lapses.
Thank you for reading this post, don’t forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has quashed a summoning order passed against an accused booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, observing that the investigation suffered from grave and fatal irregularities and that the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not made out.
The Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed the order while allowing a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, challenging the cognizance and summoning order in a case registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act.
ALSO READ: Caste-Based Abuse Over Phone Does Not Attract SC/ST Act: Calcutta High Court
The High Court categorically held that mere reference to Scheduled Caste land or the caste status of the informant is insufficient to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Court observed:
“The FIR and charge-sheet do not disclose that the alleged acts were committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere reference to Scheduled Caste land or status of the informant is insufficient to attract the provisions of the Act.”
Background of the Case
The case arose out of alleged irregularities in the allotment and transfer of agricultural land in Chitahera village. According to the prosecution, in 1997, around 282 persons were granted pattas/leases of agricultural land, which were later approved by the competent authority.
Subsequently, complaints were received alleging that:
- Some allottees were ineligible
- Revenue records were manipulated
- Land areas were fraudulently enhanced
- Sale deeds were executed using forged documents
- Land meant for Scheduled Caste beneficiaries was illegally alienated
Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered invoking IPC offences along with Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act.
Court’s Finding
After examining the FIR, charge-sheet and case records, the Court found that:
- The appellant was not named in the FIR
- Allegations against him were general and omnibus
- No specific role, overt act, or transaction was attributed to him
- There was no material indicating dishonest intention or use of forged documents by the appellant
The Bench held that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B IPC were not made out.
In an observation, the High Court noted serious lapses in the investigation. It found that the charge sheet dated 06.02.2023 included five prosecution witnesses who had died years before the investigation commenced.
The Court observed:
“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.”
Such lapses, the Court held, went to the root of the matter, rendering the investigation faulty, unfair, biased, and legally unsustainable. Continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the judicial process and lead to a miscarriage of justice.
The Bench further noted that the dispute primarily involved civil and revenue issues, which were already subject to adjudication before competent forums. The criminal proceedings were initiated:
- After an unexplained delay of more than two decades
- As an afterthought
- As a substitute for appropriate civil remedies, which is impermissible in law
Taking into account the absence of statutory ingredients under the SC/ST Act, lack of specific allegations, fatal investigation defects, and the civil nature of the dispute, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the summoning order.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Navnath Pandey, Sukrampal
Respondent: Government Advocate
Case Title:
Maloo v. State of U.P. & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 11855 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports On SC/ST Act
Leave a comment