Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1402
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5913 of 2025)
Amal Kumar & Ors.
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants arrayed as accused in FIR No.18 of 2022
in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi were before the High Court
for quashing of the FIR registered. The High Court, by the
impugned judgment refused to quash the FIR, finding that
there is a direct and specific allegation against the
appellants of having criminally conspired to interfere with
the possession of the subject land owned by the informant,
which they attempted by fabricating documents. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.12.09
14:27:01 IST
Reason:
informant being a member of a scheduled caste was abused
using the caste name and together these constitute offences
Page 1 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
punishable under Sections 3(1)(g) and (s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1
1989 . The appellants’ contention that there was only a civil
dispute between the parties, pending in a civil court, was
found to be not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings
since it is trite that on the same set of facts there could be a
civil dispute and criminal case lodged.
3. Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants submitted that the first appellant had
purchased a property from the vendee of the other
appellants in the year 2020 and was in possession of the
same. It was one Pankaj Singh who instigated the informant
to lodge the FIR and file a civil case against the appellants,
since the first appellant failed to succumb to an attempt to
extort an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from
him. In fact, the very same complainant had filed a case
against another person also at the instigation of the said
Pankaj Singh. It is contended that appellant No.1 had lodged
a complaint of interference with his property and demolition
1
for brevity ‘the Act of 1989’
Page 2 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
of the structure therein by Annexure P8 of 20.01.2022 and
the subject FIR lodged on 25.01.2025 was a counter blast.
The allegation in the FIR was regarding an alleged incident
on 21.01.2022, which occurred in the subject property. Not
only was the FIR filed belatedly on 25.01.2022 but a suit filed
on the same date, with respect to the very same property,
did not indicate such an incident having occurred.
4. Mr. Abhishek Rai, learned counsel appearing for the
informant/second respondent argued that the appellants
are involved in a racket of grabbing properties belonging
to SC/ST. Documents are fabricated and possession clearly
taken over from the informant, which led to the filing of the
criminal case. There is absolutely no reason to quash the
proceedings at this stage since the appellants would have
every right to disprove the case set up by the informant in a
trial before the Jurisdictional Court.
5. Mr. P.S. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the
State, first respondent, supported the registration of the FIR
and argued that the investigation has to be completed and
Page 3 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
submission of report by the police upon the appellants
would have their remedy before the Trial Court.
6. As we see from the records one Smt. Pratibha Jha had
purchased the subject land, from appellants 2, 3 and one
Ashraf Ansari sons of Late Moujim Ansari, by Annexure P2.
The first appellant purchased the said land from the vendee
in Annexure P2 as per Annexure P4 sale deed on 07.02.2020.
It is seen that title of the appellants 2 and 3 and one another
person was confirmed by Annexure P1 order passed by the
Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as early as on 17.01.2012
after which the sale of 2014 occurred. The first appellant had
also raised a complaint as we see from Annexure P8, against
one Pankaj Singh on 20.01.2022; for attempting extortion of
money and for levelling threats against the life of the first
appellant.
7. Be that as it may, on 25.01.2022 simultaneously a suit
was filed by second respondent, produced as Annexure P9
and an FIR lodged, which is produced as Annexure P10. In
the FIR it was claimed that the appellants 2 to 5 had created
forged documents to sell the same to the first appellant who
Page 4 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
had been illegally occupying the subject land. It is also
claimed that the appellants/accused came to the subject
land on 21.01.2022 and forcefully started building a
boundary wall; presumably the contention was that the land
was in her possession. There is also a further allegation that
appellants 4 and 6 hurled abuses on the informant
specifically mentioning the caste name, which is a casteist
slur.
8. As has been argued by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants, the plaint, Annexure P9,
registered on the same date does not indicate an incident
having occurred as is described in the First Information
Statement (FIS). In the plaint the cause of action is traced to
the month of September 2020 and several other days when
the rights of the plaintiff over the scheduled land was
attempted to be interfered with, the last of which occurrence
is said to be in December 2021. The incident as on
21.01.2022 is not at all mentioned.
9. We have also seen that the vendor of the first appellant
is not the other appellants and is a third party who has not
Page 5 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
been impleaded either in the suit or arrayed as an accused
in the criminal case lodged. Further, when there is no
allegation of dispossession of land as such in the FIS, in the
suit filed on the very same day, one of the reliefs sought is
for recovery of possession. The sale deed of the first
appellant is in the year 2020 and the other appellants
obtained the property in the year 2014. There is no relief
claimed in the suit to set aside the above sale deeds.
10. We are inclined to find that in the totality of the
circumstances as noticed above, the FIR based on the FIS is
a clear abuse of process of law. From the records of the suit
as has been filed by the first informant, the allegations in the
FIS does not come out. As of now the land is covered by a
sale deed in favour of the first appellant. There can be no
question of an offence being charged under Section 2 (3)(g)
of the Act of 1989, of wrongful dispossession of a member of
a Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe from their land.
Likewise, there is no offence as coming out under Section
3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989 since there is no allegation that the
casteist slur was made in a place within public view or that
Page 6 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
there was any member of the public present at the spot. In
any event, the allegations in the FIS itself are found to be
unbelievable going by the clear averments made in the suit
filed on the very same day. The High Court, in the
circumstances, ought to have quashed the FIR. Having not
done so we set aside the order of the High Court and quash
FIR No.18 of 2020 registered in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi
and direct that no further proceedings shall be taken by the
police against the arrayed accused in pursuance of the said
FIR. The appeal stands allowed.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……....…….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 09, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5913 of 2025)
Amal Kumar & Ors.
...Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
...Respondents
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants arrayed as accused in FIR No.18 of 2022
in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi were before the High Court
for quashing of the FIR registered. The High Court, by the
impugned judgment refused to quash the FIR, finding that
there is a direct and specific allegation against the
appellants of having criminally conspired to interfere with
the possession of the subject land owned by the informant,
which they attempted by fabricating documents. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VARSHA MENDIRATTA
Date: 2025.12.09
14:27:01 IST
Reason:
informant being a member of a scheduled caste was abused
using the caste name and together these constitute offences
Page 1 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
punishable under Sections 3(1)(g) and (s) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1
1989 . The appellants’ contention that there was only a civil
dispute between the parties, pending in a civil court, was
found to be not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings
since it is trite that on the same set of facts there could be a
civil dispute and criminal case lodged.
3. Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellants submitted that the first appellant had
purchased a property from the vendee of the other
appellants in the year 2020 and was in possession of the
same. It was one Pankaj Singh who instigated the informant
to lodge the FIR and file a civil case against the appellants,
since the first appellant failed to succumb to an attempt to
extort an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from
him. In fact, the very same complainant had filed a case
against another person also at the instigation of the said
Pankaj Singh. It is contended that appellant No.1 had lodged
a complaint of interference with his property and demolition
1
for brevity ‘the Act of 1989’
Page 2 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
of the structure therein by Annexure P8 of 20.01.2022 and
the subject FIR lodged on 25.01.2025 was a counter blast.
The allegation in the FIR was regarding an alleged incident
on 21.01.2022, which occurred in the subject property. Not
only was the FIR filed belatedly on 25.01.2022 but a suit filed
on the same date, with respect to the very same property,
did not indicate such an incident having occurred.
4. Mr. Abhishek Rai, learned counsel appearing for the
informant/second respondent argued that the appellants
are involved in a racket of grabbing properties belonging
to SC/ST. Documents are fabricated and possession clearly
taken over from the informant, which led to the filing of the
criminal case. There is absolutely no reason to quash the
proceedings at this stage since the appellants would have
every right to disprove the case set up by the informant in a
trial before the Jurisdictional Court.
5. Mr. P.S. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the
State, first respondent, supported the registration of the FIR
and argued that the investigation has to be completed and
Page 3 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
submission of report by the police upon the appellants
would have their remedy before the Trial Court.
6. As we see from the records one Smt. Pratibha Jha had
purchased the subject land, from appellants 2, 3 and one
Ashraf Ansari sons of Late Moujim Ansari, by Annexure P2.
The first appellant purchased the said land from the vendee
in Annexure P2 as per Annexure P4 sale deed on 07.02.2020.
It is seen that title of the appellants 2 and 3 and one another
person was confirmed by Annexure P1 order passed by the
Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as early as on 17.01.2012
after which the sale of 2014 occurred. The first appellant had
also raised a complaint as we see from Annexure P8, against
one Pankaj Singh on 20.01.2022; for attempting extortion of
money and for levelling threats against the life of the first
appellant.
7. Be that as it may, on 25.01.2022 simultaneously a suit
was filed by second respondent, produced as Annexure P9
and an FIR lodged, which is produced as Annexure P10. In
the FIR it was claimed that the appellants 2 to 5 had created
forged documents to sell the same to the first appellant who
Page 4 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
had been illegally occupying the subject land. It is also
claimed that the appellants/accused came to the subject
land on 21.01.2022 and forcefully started building a
boundary wall; presumably the contention was that the land
was in her possession. There is also a further allegation that
appellants 4 and 6 hurled abuses on the informant
specifically mentioning the caste name, which is a casteist
slur.
8. As has been argued by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants, the plaint, Annexure P9,
registered on the same date does not indicate an incident
having occurred as is described in the First Information
Statement (FIS). In the plaint the cause of action is traced to
the month of September 2020 and several other days when
the rights of the plaintiff over the scheduled land was
attempted to be interfered with, the last of which occurrence
is said to be in December 2021. The incident as on
21.01.2022 is not at all mentioned.
9. We have also seen that the vendor of the first appellant
is not the other appellants and is a third party who has not
Page 5 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
been impleaded either in the suit or arrayed as an accused
in the criminal case lodged. Further, when there is no
allegation of dispossession of land as such in the FIS, in the
suit filed on the very same day, one of the reliefs sought is
for recovery of possession. The sale deed of the first
appellant is in the year 2020 and the other appellants
obtained the property in the year 2014. There is no relief
claimed in the suit to set aside the above sale deeds.
10. We are inclined to find that in the totality of the
circumstances as noticed above, the FIR based on the FIS is
a clear abuse of process of law. From the records of the suit
as has been filed by the first informant, the allegations in the
FIS does not come out. As of now the land is covered by a
sale deed in favour of the first appellant. There can be no
question of an offence being charged under Section 2 (3)(g)
of the Act of 1989, of wrongful dispossession of a member of
a Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe from their land.
Likewise, there is no offence as coming out under Section
3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989 since there is no allegation that the
casteist slur was made in a place within public view or that
Page 6 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025
there was any member of the public present at the spot. In
any event, the allegations in the FIS itself are found to be
unbelievable going by the clear averments made in the suit
filed on the very same day. The High Court, in the
circumstances, ought to have quashed the FIR. Having not
done so we set aside the order of the High Court and quash
FIR No.18 of 2020 registered in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi
and direct that no further proceedings shall be taken by the
police against the arrayed accused in pursuance of the said
FIR. The appeal stands allowed.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
……....…….……………………. J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 09, 2025.
Page 7 of 7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP Crl.5913 of 2025