SC/ST Act Misuse: Don't Register FIR At 3rd Party's Instance Sans Opinion Of District Attorney (Legal): P&H HC...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently ruled on the misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The judgment provides a significant safeguard against its arbitrary use, especially when Third Parties (i.e., someone not directly affected) seek to initiate legal action.
⚖️ Key Ruling by P&H High Court
Title of the Judgment (Paraphrased):
"FIR under SC/ST Act should not be registered on the instance of a third party without first seeking the opinion of the District Attorney."
Bench: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Legal Issue:
Can a Third Party, not the victim or immediate family, trigger the registration of an FIR under the SC/ST Act, and if so, should it be done without verifying through legal scrutiny?
🔍 Court’s Observations and Legal Reasoning
1. Safeguard Against Misuse
The court acknowledged that while the SC/ST Act is a welfare legislation, meant to protect marginalized communities, it cannot be misused for personal vendetta or false implications.
Unwarranted FIRs, especially those not initiated by the victim or legal heirs, can tarnish reputations and infringe on personal liberty.
2. Role of District Attorney
The court mandated that no FIR should be registered at the instance of a third party (i.e., someone not directly aggrieved) without first obtaining a legal opinion from the District Attorney.
The District Attorney must verify whether the allegations prima facie make out an offence under the SC/ST Act.
This ensures a filtering mechanism to avoid false implication and preserve the sanctity of the statute.
3. Definition of "Aggrieved Person"
The SC/ST Act is victim-centric.
Ideally, only the victim or their legal heir/lawful representative should initiate proceedings.
Third-party informants may not have locus standi unless special circumstances are shown.
📚 Relevant Case Laws Discussed and Applied
1. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
Held that registration of FIR is mandatory when information discloses a cognizable offence.
However, the Court also acknowledged preliminary inquiry in special cases, e.g., family disputes, commercial offences, or cases under SC/ST Act, to prevent misuse.
2. Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599
Emphasized that criminal law must not be used as a tool for arm-twisting or personal vengeance.
The Supreme Court cautioned against automatic registration of FIRs in cases where motive appears malafide.
3. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 6 SCC 454
Supreme Court recognized misuse of SC/ST Act.
Introduced safeguards like preliminary inquiry, sanction before arrest, and prior verification.
Though later partially overruled in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, the principle of protecting innocent individuals still applies.
4. Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727
Reiterated that SC/ST Act cannot be diluted, but abuse of the process can be prevented through judicial oversight.
Courts have power to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional cases to prevent injustice.
✅ Takeaways from P&H High Court Ruling
| Aspect | Summary |
|---|---|
| Who can file FIR? | Preferably the victim or legal heir. Third-party informants must be scrutinized. |
| When can FIR be filed by a third party? | Only after District Attorney’s legal opinion confirms prima facie case. |
| Why is DA’s opinion required? | To filter out false or malicious complaints and ensure legal basis exists. |
| Misuse of Law? | Recognized as a genuine concern, hence procedural safeguards imposed. |
| Remedy for accused? | Preliminary inquiry, judicial scrutiny, and possible anticipatory bail if allegations appear false or retaliatory. |
🛑 Example Scenario
A political activist files a complaint against a government official under the SC/ST Act, even though the alleged victim never approached authorities.
Under this ruling:
Police cannot register FIR immediately.
Must obtain DA’s opinion to determine if allegations are valid under the Act.
If DA finds no prima facie offence, FIR should not be registered.
📌 Conclusion
This judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court strikes a balance:
It preserves the purpose of the SC/ST Act (protection of marginalized communities).
It also prevents harassment of innocent persons through false FIRs by unrelated third parties.
It reinforces the principle of "justice not only being done, but seen to be done" — both for the complainant and the accused.
RELATED Blog
0 comments