Read Time: 08 minutes

If the motive for a crime is not a casteist Attack, then the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [SC/ST Act] cannot Be invoked, said the Karnataka High Court recently. 

In this regard, Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar of the Karnataka High Court said,

"It is not as though in every crime, if the victim happens to be a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, an offence under Section 3 of the Act has been committed. If motive for crime is not casteist attack, the accused can only be chargesheeted for any of the offences under Indian Penal Code that can be appropriately invoked in the background of the incident of crime or under other law which can be applied as the facts and circumstances indicate."

The Court added by saying that while the Act is essentially meant for protecting the members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe from various atrocities or oppression, at the same, it cannot be allowed to be misused. Therefore, there is the responsibility of the investigating officer to take a decision wisely before filing the charge sheet, said the Single Judge. 

The court was hearing a petition filed by one Lokanath seeking to quash the FIR registered against him under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Section 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA), based on the complaint filed by one Srisangam Priya.

As the duo were involved in a property dispute, the petitioner contended that merely because he is fighting to protect his property, the Respondent went to the extent of making a false complaint against him under the provisions of SC/ST Act.

The Court, after going through the rival contentions, went through the relevant land records produced by the petitioner. 

It referred to Sections 3(1)(f) of SC/ST Act to opine that for invoking the said section, the land of a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe must be wrongfully occupied or cultivated by a person not belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe.

However, the charge sheet does not disclose these ingredients, added the Court. 

This apart, the Court said that there is no wrongful dispossession or wrongful interference as under the SC/ST Act. 

If the premise of the litigation is seen, it is nothing more than a dispute between two adjacent landowners. The petitioner disputes the very identity of the second respondent's land and therefore, a competent Civil Court can alone take a decision in this regard. For this reason Section 3(1)(g) is also not attracted", the Court added while noting that there was no shade of casteism or casteist remarks in the present plea. 

While parting with the order, the Court also discussed the history of the SC/ST Act and why it was enacted. 

Further, the Bench said,

"The Act was enacted for eradication of untouchability, and to protect the members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribes from casteist attack and caste based discrimination. It is in this background that various offences are enumerated in Section 3. The primary requirement for invoking any of the offences under Section 3 is caste based attack or hatred towards that caste. Unless the investigation indicates or reveals intention of a person not belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe to commit any of the offences under Section 3 of the Act, in order to oppress or insult or humiliate or subjugate or ridicule a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as such person merely belongs to that caste, the offence under Section 3 cannot be invoked in the charge sheet."

With these observations,  the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner pending before a Sessions Court in Bengaluru.

Case Name: Lokanath v. State Of Karnataka