Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005335-005335 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 19695/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts in India |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash abusive FIRs |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 |
| Questions of Law | Whether an FIR under Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act can be quashed as an abuse of process when its factual allegations are contradicted by a civil plaint filed on the same day and essential ingredients of the offences are absent. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC allow quashing of FIRs which constitute abuse of process. Allegations in the First Information Statement must include every essential ingredient of the charged offence and align with civil pleadings. In this case, valid sale deeds in favour of the first appellant and the absence of any relief to annul those deeds defeated the charge of wrongful dispossession under Section 3(1)(g). The casteist-slur offence under Section 3(1)(s) similarly failed as there was no evidence of slurs in public view or presence of third parties. The inconsistency between the FIS and the contemporaneous plaint rendered the FIR baseless, warranting quashing. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts (on interpretation of quashing powers under Section 482 CrPC) |
| Overrules | High Court of Jharkhand’s order refusing to quash FIR No.18/2022 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC extends to FIRs under the SC/ST Act when criminal allegations lack statutory ingredients.
- Civil plaints filed contemporaneously can be examined to test the veracity and coherence of FIS allegations.
- Wrongful-dispossession offences (Section 3(1)(g)) require valid demonstration of dispossession and relief to set aside impugned documents.
- Caste-slur offences (Section 3(1)(s)) mandate that slurs occur in public view or in presence of third parties.
- Inconsistency between criminal charge and civil reliefs indicates abuse of process and justifies quashing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- A First Information Statement must allege every essential ingredient of the offence charged under the SC/ST Act.
- Section 482 CrPC confers inherent powers to quash FIRs constituting an abuse of process.
- Valid sale deeds in favour of the accused and absence of any relief to annul those deeds negate wrongful dispossession.
- Absence of public presence or view at the time of the alleged caste slur negates the offence under Section 3(1)(s).
- Contradictions between the FIS and the contemporaneous civil plaint demonstrate baseless prosecution, warranting quashing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants):
- First appellant purchased the land in 2020 and was in lawful possession.
- FIR was instigated by a third party after failed extortion attempt.
- FIR was lodged belatedly on 25.01.2022; the civil plaint did not mention the alleged 21.01.2022 incident.
Informant (Second Respondent):
- Appellants engaged in a property-grabbing racket targeting SC/ST landowners.
- They fabricated documents and forcibly took possession, abusing the informant with caste slurs.
State (First Respondent):
- FIR registration was valid; investigation must proceed and accused can defend at trial.
Factual Background
- Land in question was confirmed in favour of appellants’ predecessors by Deputy Collector (2012), sold to a third party, and then to the first appellant in 2020.
- On 20.01.2022, appellant 1 lodged a complaint of extortion and threats by Pankaj Singh.
- On 25.01.2022, informant filed a civil suit (Annexure P9) and FIR (Annexure P10) alleging forged documents, dispossession on 21.01.2022, and caste-based abuse.
- The plaint traced cause of action only up to December 2021, omitted the 21.01.2022 incident, and sought recovery of possession without challenging sale deeds.
- High Court refused to quash; Supreme Court found the FIR contradictory and quashed it as an abuse of process.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC: inherent power to quash FIRs constituting an abuse of process.
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
- Section 3(1)(g) – wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled Caste/Tribe, requiring actual dispossession and relief to set aside impugned instrument.
- Section 3(1)(s) – use of caste-based slur in public view or presence of third parties, which was not established here.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed