Can an FIR under Sections 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be quashed where the First Information Statement is contradicted by contemporaneous civil pleadings and essential ingredients of the offences are absent?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Inconsistencies between the FIS and a civil plaint filed the same day can justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
• Sale deeds and title confirmations negate an offence under Section 3(1)(g) SC/ST Act when they preclude wrongful dispossession.
• Section 3(1)(s) requires that casteist slurs occur in a place within public view or with bystanders; absence of these ingredients undermines the charge.
• Delay in lodging the FIR and omission of the incident from the civil plaint render the First Information Statement “unbelievable.”
• This judgment can be cited to counter misuse of SC/ST Act allegations in property disputes.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. The High Court refused to quash based on allegations of conspiracy, forgery, dispossession and casteist abuse under the SC/ST Act.
2. Title analysis: sale deeds (2020) and Deputy Collector’s order (2012) confirm appellants’ lawful possession.
3. Comparison of FIS vs plaint: civil suit pleads events only up to December 2021; no mention of 21-01-2022 incident.
4. Statutory interpretation:
   • Section 3(1)(g) requires actual dispossession of SC/ST member—absent due to clean title.
   • Section 3(1)(s) requires casteist slur in public view or with public witnesses—absent here.
5. The FIS contradictions and lack of ingredients render the FIR an abuse of process. The Court exercised inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners (Appellants)

• The FIR was a retaliatory counter-blast; first appellant’s complaint (20-01-2022) on extortion omitted from the suit.
• The FIR was belated (filed 25-01-2022) and the plaint on the same day does not mention the alleged incident of 21-01-2022.
• Dispute is primarily civil; criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process.

Informant (Respondent)

• Appellants engage in property-grabbing racket against SC/ST members; forged documents and wrongful dispossession occurred.
• Casteist abuses targeted the informant; no ground for quashing.

State

• Investigation should proceed and appellants can defend in trial; quashing premature.

Factual Background

1. Appellants 2 and 3 acquired subject land in 2014; first appellant purchased it from a third-party vendee by sale deed dated 07-02-2020, following title confirmation (Deputy Collector’s order, 17-01-2012).
2. On 20-01-2022, first appellant lodged a complaint (Annexure P8) alleging extortion by Pankaj Singh.
3. On 25-01-2022, informant filed both a civil suit (Annexure P9) and an FIR (Annexure P10) alleging forged documents, dispossession on 21-01-2022, forceful boundary-wall construction, and casteist slurs.
4. The plaint pleads interference up to December 2021; it omits any incident dated 21-01-2022.
5. The vendor who sold to the first appellant is neither a party to the suit nor arrayed in the FIR.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 3(1)(g), SC/ST Act: wrongful dispossession of a SC/ST member—requires actual dispossession. The sale deed (2020) and earlier title orders negate any dispossession by appellants.
• Section 3(1)(s), SC/ST Act: intentional use of casteist slur in public view or with bystanders—no public audience or witnesses, hence this essential ingredient is missing.
• Section 482, CrPC: inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings that are an abuse of process; applied where FIR allegations are contradicted by contemporaneous civil pleadings and lack statutory ingredients.

Alert Indicators

• 🚨 Breaking Precedent – High Court’s refusal to quash is set aside
• ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmation of quashing standards under Section 482 CrPC