Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court, in its judgment dated 2 June 2025 in Criminal Petition No. 5584 of 2024, quashed the charge sheet and entire criminal proceedings pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru. These proceedings arose from FIR No.126/2024, registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Court found that the allegations lacked the essential ingredients required under the SC/ST Act, specifically that the alleged abuse was not “intentional” or “with knowledge of the caste” of the complainant.
“An utterance of ‘do not reveal your casteist mindset’ would, by no stretch of imagination, amount to abuse by taking the name of the caste.”
Facts
The petitioner and complainant, along with others, were partners in a real estate venture called ‘Green Land Infra’, established in 2011. Disputes emerged between 2013 and 2016, culminating in the closure of the firm in 2016. In December 2020, the petitioner allegedly called the complainant to MES Grounds, Jayanagar, and abused and threatened him, allegedly making caste-related remarks. The complainant reported this to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE) on 20 April 2021, nearly four months after the incident. The DCRE, after a delay of nearly three years, directed registration of the FIR on 6 April 2024. The police investigated and filed a charge sheet.
Issues
- Whether the complaint and subsequent proceedings attract the ingredients of offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint and registering the FIR vitiates the proceedings.
- Whether continuation of trial would be an abuse of process of law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the complaint was an outcome of a business rivalry and was lodged with inordinate delay — four months after the incident and nearly four years before the registration of FIR. The core allegation—that the petitioner told the complainant “not to reveal your casteist mindset”—did not amount to an offence under the SC/ST Act. It was also pointed out that the eyewitnesses were close associates of the complainant and not credible. The petitioner argued that continuation of proceedings in such circumstances was a gross abuse of process.
Respondent’s Arguments
The complainant asserted that the petitioner was well aware of his caste identity and intentionally abused him in public, which was witnessed by two individuals. It was submitted that the delay in registration of FIR was due to the DCRE’s inaction and not the complainant’s fault. Since a charge sheet had been filed after proper investigation, the trial ought to proceed. The State supported this contention and argued that the petition should be dismissed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which require that:
- The abuse must be intentional,
- It must be directed at a person knowing they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, and
- It must be in a public view.
The Court emphasized that “intention” and “knowledge of caste” are sine qua non for attracting the provisions of the SC/ST Act. Mere strained business relations or general abusive language cannot be construed as offences under the Act unless they satisfy these criteria.
Precedent Analysis
- Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020 SCC OnLine SC 907): The Supreme Court held that disputes arising out of property or monetary issues do not attract the SC/ST Act merely because one party belongs to a Scheduled Caste.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335): Reiterated the conditions under which a criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
- Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. (2008) 12 SCC 531: Clarified that abuse must be made in public and with knowledge of the victim’s caste.
These judgments were relied upon to establish that continuation of the present proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the complaint did not disclose any intentional or caste-specific abuse. The petitioner’s statement — “do not reveal your caste mindset” — was not in itself a casteist slur. Moreover, there was an unexplained delay of 118 days in approaching the DCRE, and a further delay of over three years by the DCRE to act on the complaint. The credibility of eyewitnesses, who were long-time acquaintances of the complainant and who claimed to be present coincidentally, was also found questionable.
“The allegations are vague and no specific overt act is attributed against the petitioner… It is a clear case of abuse of criminal law to settle business scores.”
Conclusion
The Court held that permitting the trial to continue based on such vague and delayed allegations would constitute an abuse of the legal process. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and all proceedings, including the charge sheet in Special Case No.943/2024, were quashed.
Implications
This judgment underscores that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked lightly in business disputes or personal rivalries without satisfying the legal thresholds of intentional abuse with caste-based animus. It reaffirms judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse of special statutes and to safeguard the integrity of criminal prosecutions.
Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Suo Motu Conviction in Abetment of Suicide Case
