Recently, the Allahabad High Court came down heavily on both the complainant and the accused in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after uncovering what it described as a “serious abuse” of the process of law and a “gross misuse” of the Act’s benevolent provisions. What began as a case of alleged atrocity by a Dalit woman and her daughters-in-law took an unexpected turn when the Court discovered attempts on both sides to manipulate the justice system and exploit the statutory scheme for personal gain.
The matter arose from a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, challenging the cognizance and summoning order issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), in connection with a criminal case involving offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. During the hearing, counsel for the Appellants contended that the first information report had not been genuinely lodged by the complainant but was registered merely on her thumb impression. This claim was immediately refuted by the complainant’s counsel, who asserted that no such allegation had been made and that the FIR had been properly lodged.
Considering the gravity of the matter, particularly as the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, the Court apprehended that she might have been subjected to influence or coercion. Consequently, it summoned the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the investigating officer, and the Complainant to appear personally before the Bench. When they appeared, the Complainant stated that her thumb impression had been taken on blank paper. In response, the Government Advocate produced the case record, showing that the FIR had, in fact, been lodged on the basis of a written complaint submitted by her.
The Court was also informed that the complainant and her two daughters-in-law had each given their statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, supporting the prosecution's case at every stage. They had also been medically examined and had received compensation of Rs.1.5 lakh each from the State Government under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Taking note of these submissions, the Court expressed deep dismay over the shifting stance of the complainant. In its words, “The Court finds it deeply disturbing that the complainant now denies having filed the FIR, despite having made statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. affirming the allegations and having availed of substantial monetary compensation under the statutory scheme meant for genuine victims of atrocities.” The Court further observed, “Such conduct prima facie reflects a serious abuse of the process of law and a gross misuse of the benevolent provisions of the SC/ST Act. The sequence of events suggests a deliberate attempt to manipulate the criminal justice process after wrongfully obtaining public funds, thereby committing a fraud upon the State.”
The Bench also remarked that the conduct of the Appellants was equally reprehensible, as they appeared to have played an active role in attempting to subvert the course of justice. It emphasised that such acts strike at the foundation of faith in judicial processes and warranted strong deterrent measures.
The Court dismissed the criminal appeal and directed the Complainant and her two daughters-in-law to refund the entire compensation amount of Rs.4.5 lakh to the State Government. It also imposed a cost of Rs.5 lakh on the Appellants for their manipulative conduct, ordering that the sum be deposited in the High Court Welfare Fund within twenty days. The Court directed that, in the event of default, coercive steps for recovery be initiated in accordance with the law. At the same time, it clarified that the ongoing trial before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) should continue strictly in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the contradictory statements of the complainant or by any observations made in the order.
Case Title: Rameshwar Singh @ Rameshwar Pratap Singh and 18 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. - 9649 Of 2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Anshu Pandey and Adv. Sachin Mishra
Counsel for the Respondent: Govt Adv. Dinesh Chandra Tripathi
Picture Source :
