Read Time: 12 minutes

The Supreme Court recently held that where it appears to the Court that the offence in   question, although covered under  the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, is  primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.

The Bench went on to add,

On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In this regard, reliance was placed on a recent decision of Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two-Judge Bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant, clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 CrPC cannot be construed as a   proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC.

In Ramgopal the Court had further held that the touchstone for exercising the extra­ordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 CrPC, would be to do complete justice.

In the instant case, a 3-judge bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli added that the Court in Ramgopal further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non­heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level.

An appeal was filed by one Ramawatar who was convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and a consequential sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed on him.

A civil dispute over the ownership and possessory rights of a piece of land between the Appellant and his neighbour Prembai took an ugly turn when the Appellant allegedly not only threw a brick on the Complainant but also made filthy and slur remarks on her caste, which prompted the Complainant to lodge FIR under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which led to his conviction.

This was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench but the appeal  was dismissed in 2010.

It was found by the bench that the matter had been that the matter had been settled between the parties, and the Complainant had filed an application for compromise.

Ordinarily, noted the bench that, when dealing   with   offences   arising   out   of   special statutes   such   as   the   SC/ST   Act, the   Court   will   be   extremely circumspect in   its   approach.  It added that, the SC/ST Act has  been  specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

With this view, the bench remarked that Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress.

“It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and   therefore   ought   to   be   accorded   a   higher   level   of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case”, held the Court.

Keeping this in mind, the Bench went on to enlist reason why it was inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before it.

Noting that the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre­existing civil dispute between the parties, the appellant from the beginning submitted that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute.

“Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the afore­stated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case.”

Moreover, it was noted that the offence in question, for which the appellant had been convicted, did not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. This prompted the Court to say,

“The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively  weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim.”

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings with the view to do complete justice between the parties.

Cause Title: Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh