The Supreme Court recently said that if any court finds that an offence registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, is primarily a private or civil matter or has not been committed due to the caste of the victim, the Court can use its inherent powers to quash the hearing in that case. A bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli recently passed the order while hearing a petition in a property dispute case involving a Scheduled Caste woman.
The case pertained to a civil dispute over the ownership and possession rights of a piece of land between Ramawatar (appellant) and his neighbour Prembai (complainant) in Madhya Pradesh. Ramawatar and Prembai live in adjoining houses and were entangled in a property dispute with respect to a portion of land on which Prembai’s house was built.
Ramawatar and his brother broke down a wall to make a door that opened into the house of Prembai. When she resisted, a quarrel ensued between the two and Ramawatar threw a brick at Prembai. A complaint was thereafter lodged at the concerned police station on the same day and an MLC was also performed. As the nature of the injury was simple and the offence was found non-cognisable, the police did not take any further step.
On the following day, when Prembai was sitting in front of her house, Ramawatar and his brother appeared at the spot. They were enraged that Prembai had lodged an FIR against them. They started abusing her with repeated reference to her lower caste and also threatened her with dire consequences.
Prembai and her husband reported the incident to the Harijan Welfare Police Station, and an FIR was lodged against the accused under the
SC/ST Act.
The case went to the trial court which noted that Prembai belonged to the “Prajapati” community which is a Scheduled Caste. It was also observed that both the parties had admitted that there was a pending property dispute between them.
The Court further noted that the prosecution witnesses had, by and large, supported the version of Prembai and had substantiated that Ramawatar and his brother Kuddu used deprecatory language against Prembai. It also found that Ramawatar had made specific reference to Prembai’s caste with the intent to insult her. The actions of Ramawatar and co-accused Kuddu were held to be in contravention of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, read with Section 34 IPC. The Court convicted both the accused and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Aggrieved by the verdict, both the accused filed an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Jabalpur Bench. However, the co-accused Kuddu passed away during the pendency of proceedings.
The primary contention of Ramawatar before the High Court was that the abuses, if any, were not meant to demean Prembai as a member of the Scheduled Caste community and the incident occurred only because of a property dispute between the parties. It was thus submitted that the alleged incident could not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
However, after reappraising the evidence on record, the High Court disagreed with Ramawatar’s contention and held that there was sufficient material to establish that Prembai being a member of the Scheduled Caste community was humiliated by Ramawatar. Thus, concurring with the findings of the trial court, the High Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against Ramawatar. He then appealed in the Supreme Court.
The counsel for Ramawatar submitted in the apex court that the parties were residents of the same village and the enmity no longer existed between them. It was submitted that the parties wished to settle their dispute so that they may continue to have cordial relations. However, the counsel for Madhya Pradesh (where the dispute took place) vehemently opposed such recourse. It was contended that there was a concurrent finding of conviction, and no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal.
Having heard counsel for both parties, the apex court observed that two questions arose for its consideration in the appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a “non-compoundable offence”. And if yes, whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act.
So far as the first question is concerned, the apex court referred to its judgment in Ramgopal & Anr vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two judge-bench consisting of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justice Surya Kant was confronted with an identical question. The Court held that it had been 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 the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC.
It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 CrPC, would be to do complete justice. “Therefore, the Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/ inherent powers,” the bench said.
—By Adarsh Patel and India Legal News Service