The High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, has quashed and set aside a Special Court’s order issuing process against several individuals for alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Justice Y. G. Khobragade ruled that a General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder, who is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe, lacks the locus standi to file a criminal complaint under the Act when the actual tribal victim has not come forward to lodge the complaint.
Background
The legal battle originated from a complaint (Criminal M.A. No. 179 of 2024) filed by Laxminarayan Chotelal Rathod (Respondent No. 2), claiming to be the GPA holder for one Fakiri Kisan Gangave, a member of a Scheduled Tribe. Rathod alleged that the accused (Appellants) had conspired with revenue authorities to illegally transfer 25 acres and 25 gunthas of land belonging to Gangave at village Waluj.
The complaint stated that the accused created fabricated sale deeds and encroached upon the land without the mandatory permission from the Collector required under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC). Consequently, the learned Special Court (SC & ST Act), Aurangabad, issued process against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Atrocities Act on May 16, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants challenged this order, contending that the complainant did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community. They argued that the GPA did not authorize Rathod to file criminal proceedings and that the actual owner, Gangave, had not filed any complaint. Furthermore, they relied on a report from the Sub-Registrar which stated that the land in question was “Class-1” land and did not require the Collector’s permission for sale.
On the other hand, counsel for Respondent No. 2 argued that the tribal land was transferred without prior permission, intentionally intimidating the tribal owner in public view. It was contended that the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) were fully met as the land was transferred knowingly.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the legal standing of the GPA holder in the context of the Atrocities Act. Justice Khobragade observed that while the informant claimed to be a GPA holder, the power of attorney did not appear to authorize him to file a criminal complaint on behalf of a member of a tribal community.
Regarding the terminology used in legal representations, the Court noted:
“The words ‘on behalf of’, indicates that an individual is acting as a representation for another person or community (the member). It implies an agency relationship.”
The Court highlighted that the victim herself had not lodged the complaint, stating:
“However, the said member of Scheduled Tribe did not come forward to lodge the complaint. Therefore, it itself creates purpose about the locus of the present respondent No.2 / complainant to lodge the said complaint.”
Furthermore, the Court addressed the merits of the allegations under the SC/ST Act. Referring to the report of the Investigating Officer and the Sub-Registrar, the Court found that the land admeasuring 3 Hectare 22 R standing in the name of the first appellant was not recorded as tribal land in the revenue extracts ($7/12$).
The Court emphasized that if any contravention of Sections 36 and 36A of the MLRC occurred, the Collector—as the revenue authority—retains the power to initiate proceedings. However, the complainant failed to bring substantial material to show the land was prohibited from transfer.
The Court concluded:
“Therefore, to my view, the offence under Section 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) does not constitute. However, the learned trial Court overlooked the provisions of law as well as the contents of the complaint, passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated May 16, 2025, passed by the Special Judge, Aurangabad. The complaint (Criminal M.A. No. 179 of 2024) was dismissed in its entirety.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2025
Bench: Justice Y. G. Khobragade
Date: April 20, 2026
