The Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice N.S. Shekhawat, has quashed an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, citing the lack of evidence to prove that the accused were aware of the complainant’s caste at the time of the alleged incident. The judgement underscores the essential requirement of caste knowledge for establishing offences under the Act.
The case, Gurcharan Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another (CRM M-18550 of 2014), revolved around allegations of caste-based abuse and physical assault stemming from a land-related dispute in District Patiala. The High Court’s decision highlights critical aspects of procedural and substantive law, particularly in cases involving caste-based atrocities.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an altercation on 17 July 2012 in the fields of Patran Tehsil, District Patiala. The complainant, Vaisakhi Ram, a labourer from the Majbhi caste, alleged that Gurcharan Singh, his neighbour and landowner, along with others, assaulted him, used caste-based slurs, and threatened to kill him for working on a rival’s farmland.
Ram filed his complaint eight months later, on 30 March 2013, claiming that the accused had made derogatory remarks like, “Kutiya-Chuhria, why are you cultivating Balbir Singh’s land? We warned you before.” He also alleged a subsequent attack where further threats were made.
In response, Gurcharan Singh and his co-accused contended that the complaint was a retaliatory measure against an earlier FIR (No. 165/2012), registered against Ram and others, which resulted in their conviction in 2017 for offences including grievous hurt. The accused sought the quashing of Ram’s FIR, arguing procedural delays and the absence of requisite elements to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.
Legal Issues
The High Court examined several pivotal questions:
1. Knowledge of Caste Identity: Did the accused know that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste, as required for invoking provisions under the SC/ST Act?
2. Delay in Filing Complaint: Could the significant delay in registering the complaint cast doubt on its authenticity and veracity?
3. Public Nature of Incident: Was the alleged incident committed in a public place, a necessary condition under the Act?
Court’s Observations
Lack of Knowledge of Caste Identity: Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted that the complainant failed to provide any evidence that the accused were aware of his caste identity at the time of the alleged incident. The judge observed:
“It is not spelled out from the allegations levelled in the complaint that the petitioners were conscious of the fact that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste at the time of the alleged incident. Merely because the complainant worked on adjacent land is insufficient to draw such an inference.”
Private Nature of Incident: The court further remarked that the incident reportedly occurred in a private setting and not in a public place, which is a precondition for invoking certain provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Delay in Filing the Complaint: The eight-month delay in filing the FIR was deemed unexplained. The court emphasised that such delays raise serious concerns about the veracity of the allegations and undermine the complainant’s case.
Judgement
Quashing the FIR, Justice Shekhawat underscored the importance of adhering to the procedural and substantive safeguards required under the law. He observed:
“The prosecution of the petitioners under the SC/ST Act is not warranted from the facts brought on record. The proceedings lack the requisite ingredients to sustain charges under the Act and are therefore liable to be quashed.”
The court held that the complainant’s FIR was filed as a counterblast to the earlier criminal case against him, which had already resulted in his conviction.
Representation
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Mr Tarunveer Vashisht
– Respondents’ Counsel: Mr I.P.S. Sabharwal (Deputy Advocate General, Punjab) and Mr Ritesh Aggarwal
