The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989's Sections 3(1)(v) and (va), were the subject of criminal proceedings that the Supreme Court annulled because they amounted to an abuse of the legal system by turning a private civil dispute into a criminal case.
The appeal challenging the Madras High Court's
The appeal challenging the Madras High Court's decision to uphold the private respondent's decision to bring criminal charges against the petitioners for violating Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) was being heard by the bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari.
In this instance, the parties were engaged in a personal argument over the erroneous construction. According to the charges in the complaint, the complainant had bought the empty lot and built the structure.
The accused is accused of putting up illegal construction on his water pipeline, sewage pipeline, and EB Cable by illegally encroaching upon the common route next to his home and starting to build the temple.
violation of Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The private respondent filed a private complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for an alleged violation of Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He claims that the petitioners—the original accused—conspired to encroach on the pathway next to his home and began to build a temple.
The accused individuals petitioned the High Court to end the criminal investigation into them. By the contested judgment and order, the High Court rejected the aforementioned application and declined to halt the criminal investigations.
The bench was asked to consider the following:
Whether or not the High Court's order requires interference
The bench determined that the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, had performed the inspection following the High Court's decision and had discovered that the temple had made absolutely no encroachments. It appears that the complainant then petitioned the Madras High Court once more.
The Supreme Court noted that the complainant had violated all building norms, built a building in flagrant violation of the set-back regulations, and added unauthorized construction to the ground floor and the first floor. This was the case on behalf of the original accused, the Supreme Court noted. The Temple then petitioned the High Court for a writ of mandate. The High Court's Division Bench stopped the legal action against the temple.
The bench noted that the complainant had filed a private complaint under the 1989 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the aforementioned violations. The parties' private civil disagreement is transformed into criminal procedures. Therefore, starting criminal proceedings for crimes covered by Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is nothing more than a violation of the legal system.
According to the Supreme Court, no case is even remotely made out for the charges under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989). None of the requirements of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) are made out or satisfied.
Conclusion
According to the above, the bench declared the High Court's contested verdict and order to be unsupportable and permitted the appeal.
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
