Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 886
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2018
KONDE NAGESHWAR RAO … APPELLANT
VERSUS
A. SRIRAMA CHANDRA
MURTY & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J .
1. This Appeal questions the judgment passed by the
Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 15.10.2014,
whereby Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) preferred by Respondents No. 1 and 2,
who were Accused 1 and 2 respectively in P.R.C. No. 25
of 2004, pending before the Court of II Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Eluru for the offences under Section
3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
(SC/ST Act) was allowed by quashing the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.07.23
18:22:17 IST
Reason:
proceedings against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 1 of 13
2. The origin of this case is from a land allotment dispute
in Duvva village, where the Appellant herein alleged that
Respondent No. 2, who was the Mandal Revenue Officer
(MRO) at the behest Accused No. 3, the proprietor of
Ramakrishna Cine Theatre of the same village,
manipulated the allotment of two plots to the upper
caste individuals related to him, earmarked for
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe beneficiaries.
3. This allotment was objected by the Appellant, because of
which it is alleged that he was falsely implicated in a
criminal case as part of a conspiracy in retaliation, owing
to the action initiated against Respondent No. 2 on the
complaint of the Appellant relating to the wrongful
allotment of the plots. It would not be out of place to
mention here that the Appellant was working as a Junior
Accountant in Government Printing Press at Hyderabad
and, because of the criminal case, he was placed under
suspension. Thereafter, on a representation submitted
by him in the criminal case, it was found that he was not
even present in the village when the offence had taken
place, in which he had been roped in by Respondent No.
1 at the asking of Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 3.
4. The criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant
were based upon a clash that occurred on 15.05.1995
between the two groups of Scheduled Caste in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 2 of 13
Kothamalapalli village. The case was registered as Crime
No. 40 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 148, 452,
324 r/w 149 IPC at Tanuku Rural Police Station.
5. Respondent No. 1 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, and
the Investigating Officer in this case. It was further
alleged that the Appellant was not named initially in the
FIR, but his name figured subsequently at the time of
the filing of the charge sheet.
6. What was alleged was that this action of wrongful
involvement in the case was on account of his belonging
to the Scheduled Caste, and it was for that reason that
he was being prosecuted with a malicious intent. After
the report was submitted by the Competent Authority,
he was found innocent and thereafter the criminal
proceedings which were initiated against him were
dropped.
7. After the prosecution against the Appellant had been
withdrawn, a complaint was filed by the Appellant
against Respondents No. 1 and 2, along with Accused
No. 3. It was alleged that at the behest of Respondent
No. 2, the MRO, who bore a grudge against the
Appellant, as well as Accused No. 3, whose relatives were
the beneficiaries of such allotment, Respondent No. 1
was instigated, and all three, in conspiracy with each
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 3 of 13
other, implicated the Appellant and his brother.
Allegations regarding humiliation, harassment and the
commission of offences under the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
were made, which upon investigation by a Deputy
Superintendent of Police were found to be substantiated.
A complaint was then filed, after obtaining proper
sanction for prosecution against Respondents No. 1 and
2 before the Magistrate, which led to the filing of the
petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court.
8. The Private Respondents herein filed Writ Petitions No.
25527 and 24608 of 2000 before the High Court, which
were ultimately disposed of by order dated 06.01.2003,
by observing that upon completion of the investigation
by the Inspector General of Police (PCR Cell), if the
commission of offences is revealed, a charge sheet may
be filed before the appropriate court as per law. Upon
such filing of the charge sheet, it was open to the
respondents to appear before the court and place all
materials in support of their case to prove their
innocence, and until the case is finally disposed of, the
Appellant shall not be arrested.
9. An appeal was preferred against this order before a
Division Bench by the Appellant as well as the State of
Andhra Pradesh, whereupon the Division Bench
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 4 of 13
proceeded to dispose of the same by setting aside the
order of the Single Judge to the extent of directing no
arrest of the respondents till the finalization of the case.
10. After the investigation was completed, the competent
court took cognizance of the charge sheet that was filed,
and the same was numbered as PRC No. 25/2014,
pending committal to the Special Court for the trial of
cases under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. It was at this stage that a challenge was posed to
these proceedings initiated against the private
respondents by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC
seeking quashing thereof.
11. As stated above, the High Court proceeded to allow the
petition so preferred, by quashing the proceedings,
leading to the filing of the present appeal.
12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the High Court erred in exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. There was overwhelming evidence in
the form of 39 witnesses and substantial incriminating
material against the respondents, establishing a strong
prima facie case under Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii)
of the SC/ST Act. The scope of Section 482, according to
the counsel, is limited and should be invoked only in
cases where no alternative remedy is available to the
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 5 of 13
accused. The Trial Court, at the stage of framing of the
charge, would be competent to assess the prima facie
evidence and discharge the accused if the material is
insufficient. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by
engaging in a roving inquiry into the prosecution case
instead of confining itself to determining whether the
allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. Proper
appreciation of the material gathered by the
investigating agency was not carried out and, in any
case, the same should have been left to the trial court.
The High Court has overstepped its authority while
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction by approaching
the case in a manner of evaluating the evidence, which
is impermissible by way of a superficial reading of the
case record, which has led to erroneous conclusions that
undermine the incriminating evidence on record. The
credibility of the witness statements and merits of the
prosecution case cannot be adjudged by the High Court
at the pre-trial stage. The Court should have left the
assessment of the veracity of the evidence of the
witnesses and the prosecution case to the trial court.
13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Private
Respondent No. 2, the MRO, has submitted that there
was no mala fide intention on the part of the private
respondents as they were performing the duties
assigned to them by following the government guidelines
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 6 of 13
and instructions from their superiors. The allegations
against them are false, motivated, and time barred.
Rather, it is the mala fide intention on the part of the
Appellant to seek revenge because of the evidence
collected regarding his involvement in the group clash.
Reliance has been placed on the report of the Sub-
Collector, Kovvur, who returned a finding that there was
no mala fide intention on the part of the private
respondents, especially the MRO. The action taken by
him with regard to the allotment of the plots, were
according to the government instructions, leading to the
dropping of the departmental proceedings initiated
against Respondent No. 2 by the department.
14. As regards the evidence which had been collected
against the Appellant during the investigation of the
criminal case of the year 1995 relating to the group
clash, statements were recorded of the injured parties
who had named him, establishing his presence. The
arrest of the Appellant and his family members was
made only after the directions were issued by the Sub-
Collector and the SDM, Kovvur, to the Station House
Officer. Submission has also been made that the
withdrawal of prosecution against the Appellant by the
government at the very initial stage, as ordered, does not
reflect that the Appellant was wrongly implicated as an
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 7 of 13
accused, as evidence of none of the witnesses and their
veracity was tested before the court.
15. That apart, he has supported the High Court judgment,
and the observations made therein which also
acknowledges that the respondents acted on
instructions from their superiors. The factum of there
being a complaint on 16.06.2003, whereas the incident
occurred in May 1995, reflects upon the ill-intention on
the part of the Appellant, as it is delayed and time-
barred. His further submission is that, for invoking
provisions under the SC/ST Act, the mala fide intention
should have been reflected at the very outset, whereas
the same was not present.
16. Going by the contents of the complaint itself, it would
reflect that the same could not be sustained for the
reason that the dispute occurred between two Scheduled
Caste groups, and the same was not driven by caste-
based malice. No independent discretion was exercised,
nor was it with any mala fide intent, either for issuance
of the Pattas or for arresting the Appellant, rather the
same was based upon the official directives from the
Sub-Collector and the District Collector.
17. As regards Respondent No. 2, it is asserted that there
was no substantive evidence on record to reflect
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 8 of 13
involvement in the matter beyond the complainant’s
time-barred assertions. The delay itself casts doubt on
the credibility of the allegations made against them.
Counsel states that the High Court has not considered
the evidence as such, but has, on the basis of justifiable
and well-reasoned conclusions, rendered its judgments
in favour of the respondents. He therefore pressed for
dismissal of the present appeal.
18. Before we proceed to decide the case on merits, it would
be appropriate to mention here that during the pendency
of the present appeal, Accused No. 1 had expired and
vide order dated 12.04.2019 passed in IA No.
25309/2019, the name of Respondent No. 1 stands
deleted from the array of parties at the request of the
Appellant and upon his application. The present appeal,
therefore, cannot proceed qua Appellant No. 1.
19. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties, and with their assistance having gone
through the pleadings and upon consideration of the
documents placed on record, we are not inclined to
accept the present appeal.
20. The facts as narrated above indicate that the
prosecution initiated against the private respondents
was based upon a complaint filed by the Appellant on
the dropping of and the withdrawal from prosecution in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 9 of 13
criminal case qua him. It is at this stage that the
allegations of mala fide and wrongful prosecution at the
behest of Respondent No. 2, the MRO, and Accused No.
3, proprietor of Ramakrishna Theatre, who is alleged to
have colluded with Respondent No. 1, the Sub-Inspector
of Police, who was the Investigating Officer. Respondent
No. 1 falsely implicated the Appellant and his younger
brother as accused in the rioting case relating to the
clash between two groups belonging to the Scheduled
Caste. The basis for the mala fide is the complaint which
has been lodged by the Appellant against Respondent
No. 2 for wrongfully allotting two house sites Pattas to
the Kapu community related to Accused No. 3, whereas
the same were reserved for the Scheduled Caste
category.
21. It is an admitted position that, on the complaint,
initially, it was prima facie observed to be correct but on
detailed inquiry and on clarification, it turned out that
the allotment made by Respondent No. 2 was as per the
government instructions. In any case, the cancellation
of allotment had taken place. Therefore, there was no
reason as to why Respondent No. 2 would proceed to
malafidely involve the Appellant and his family in the
case. That apart, since it was admittedly a dispute
between two groups belonging to the Scheduled Caste,
and the clash was not with any other community, rather
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 10 of 13
intra-caste, involvement of the Appellant because of him
being a Scheduled Caste in the criminal case does not
arise, what to say of mala fide . No evidence has been
brought on record which would indicate mala fide
intention on the part of Respondent No. 2 or any
connivance. The bald allegations against the Appellant
would not in itself be sustainable.
22. Perusal of the complaint would also indicate that the
grievance was not really relatable to the false and
malicious involvement in the criminal proceedings
against the Appellant and his family members because
of them belonging to Scheduled Caste. The very intent
being absent, the offences for which the prosecution has
been launched are not made out. That apart, merely
because a number of cases and various litigations are
pending between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2,
in itself cannot be a ground for presuming that the
prosecution initiated against the appellant was at the
behest of and with a false and malicious intent, by now
deceased Respondent No. 1. For attracting the offences,
as alleged to have been committed by the private
respondents, specific instances and incidents supported
by evidence are required to be present, which is missing
in this case.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 11 of 13
23. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
1
Maharashtra , this Court has emphasized that merely
because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground
for prosecution. The offences alleged must have been
committed solely on the basis of the victim’s caste
status. Misuse of the statute to settle personal scores or
to harass individuals cannot be permitted if it is
apparent. The Court should in such situation be not
hesitant to step in and stop the said misuse. Prosecution
needs to be quashed at an early stage to prevent undue
harassment of the accused where there is clear legal
infirmity in the prosecution case, such as the
allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
disclose an offence or the entire case is a bad faith
exercise weaponized to settle personal scores, rather
than seeking justice ( Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh
2
and others ’).
24. This court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v.
3
State of Maharashtra and another had also observed
that there has been an alarming increase in false
complaints under the SC/ST Act, particularly against
1
(2000) 3 SCC 557
2
(2013) 9 SCC 245
3
(2018) 6 SCC 454
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 12 of 13
public servants and judicial officers with an oblique
motive to settle personal scores or to harass individuals.
Such acts cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and need
to be stopped at the very outset so that there is no
miscarriage of justice.
25. The observations and conclusions arrived at by the High
Court are based upon the proper appreciation of the
pleadings, the correct reading and application of law and
thus, cannot be faulted with. The impugned order dated
15.10.2014 as passed by the High Court being in
accordance with law does not call for any interference.
26. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
……...……….……………………..CJI.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 13 of 13
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2018
KONDE NAGESHWAR RAO … APPELLANT
VERSUS
A. SRIRAMA CHANDRA
MURTY & ANR. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J .
1. This Appeal questions the judgment passed by the
Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana
and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 15.10.2014,
whereby Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) preferred by Respondents No. 1 and 2,
who were Accused 1 and 2 respectively in P.R.C. No. 25
of 2004, pending before the Court of II Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Eluru for the offences under Section
3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
(SC/ST Act) was allowed by quashing the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2025.07.23
18:22:17 IST
Reason:
proceedings against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 1 of 13
2. The origin of this case is from a land allotment dispute
in Duvva village, where the Appellant herein alleged that
Respondent No. 2, who was the Mandal Revenue Officer
(MRO) at the behest Accused No. 3, the proprietor of
Ramakrishna Cine Theatre of the same village,
manipulated the allotment of two plots to the upper
caste individuals related to him, earmarked for
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe beneficiaries.
3. This allotment was objected by the Appellant, because of
which it is alleged that he was falsely implicated in a
criminal case as part of a conspiracy in retaliation, owing
to the action initiated against Respondent No. 2 on the
complaint of the Appellant relating to the wrongful
allotment of the plots. It would not be out of place to
mention here that the Appellant was working as a Junior
Accountant in Government Printing Press at Hyderabad
and, because of the criminal case, he was placed under
suspension. Thereafter, on a representation submitted
by him in the criminal case, it was found that he was not
even present in the village when the offence had taken
place, in which he had been roped in by Respondent No.
1 at the asking of Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 3.
4. The criminal proceedings initiated against the Appellant
were based upon a clash that occurred on 15.05.1995
between the two groups of Scheduled Caste in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 2 of 13
Kothamalapalli village. The case was registered as Crime
No. 40 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 148, 452,
324 r/w 149 IPC at Tanuku Rural Police Station.
5. Respondent No. 1 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, and
the Investigating Officer in this case. It was further
alleged that the Appellant was not named initially in the
FIR, but his name figured subsequently at the time of
the filing of the charge sheet.
6. What was alleged was that this action of wrongful
involvement in the case was on account of his belonging
to the Scheduled Caste, and it was for that reason that
he was being prosecuted with a malicious intent. After
the report was submitted by the Competent Authority,
he was found innocent and thereafter the criminal
proceedings which were initiated against him were
dropped.
7. After the prosecution against the Appellant had been
withdrawn, a complaint was filed by the Appellant
against Respondents No. 1 and 2, along with Accused
No. 3. It was alleged that at the behest of Respondent
No. 2, the MRO, who bore a grudge against the
Appellant, as well as Accused No. 3, whose relatives were
the beneficiaries of such allotment, Respondent No. 1
was instigated, and all three, in conspiracy with each
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 3 of 13
other, implicated the Appellant and his brother.
Allegations regarding humiliation, harassment and the
commission of offences under the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
were made, which upon investigation by a Deputy
Superintendent of Police were found to be substantiated.
A complaint was then filed, after obtaining proper
sanction for prosecution against Respondents No. 1 and
2 before the Magistrate, which led to the filing of the
petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court.
8. The Private Respondents herein filed Writ Petitions No.
25527 and 24608 of 2000 before the High Court, which
were ultimately disposed of by order dated 06.01.2003,
by observing that upon completion of the investigation
by the Inspector General of Police (PCR Cell), if the
commission of offences is revealed, a charge sheet may
be filed before the appropriate court as per law. Upon
such filing of the charge sheet, it was open to the
respondents to appear before the court and place all
materials in support of their case to prove their
innocence, and until the case is finally disposed of, the
Appellant shall not be arrested.
9. An appeal was preferred against this order before a
Division Bench by the Appellant as well as the State of
Andhra Pradesh, whereupon the Division Bench
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 4 of 13
proceeded to dispose of the same by setting aside the
order of the Single Judge to the extent of directing no
arrest of the respondents till the finalization of the case.
10. After the investigation was completed, the competent
court took cognizance of the charge sheet that was filed,
and the same was numbered as PRC No. 25/2014,
pending committal to the Special Court for the trial of
cases under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. It was at this stage that a challenge was posed to
these proceedings initiated against the private
respondents by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC
seeking quashing thereof.
11. As stated above, the High Court proceeded to allow the
petition so preferred, by quashing the proceedings,
leading to the filing of the present appeal.
12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the High Court erred in exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. There was overwhelming evidence in
the form of 39 witnesses and substantial incriminating
material against the respondents, establishing a strong
prima facie case under Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii)
of the SC/ST Act. The scope of Section 482, according to
the counsel, is limited and should be invoked only in
cases where no alternative remedy is available to the
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 5 of 13
accused. The Trial Court, at the stage of framing of the
charge, would be competent to assess the prima facie
evidence and discharge the accused if the material is
insufficient. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by
engaging in a roving inquiry into the prosecution case
instead of confining itself to determining whether the
allegations disclosed a cognizable offence. Proper
appreciation of the material gathered by the
investigating agency was not carried out and, in any
case, the same should have been left to the trial court.
The High Court has overstepped its authority while
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction by approaching
the case in a manner of evaluating the evidence, which
is impermissible by way of a superficial reading of the
case record, which has led to erroneous conclusions that
undermine the incriminating evidence on record. The
credibility of the witness statements and merits of the
prosecution case cannot be adjudged by the High Court
at the pre-trial stage. The Court should have left the
assessment of the veracity of the evidence of the
witnesses and the prosecution case to the trial court.
13. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Private
Respondent No. 2, the MRO, has submitted that there
was no mala fide intention on the part of the private
respondents as they were performing the duties
assigned to them by following the government guidelines
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 6 of 13
and instructions from their superiors. The allegations
against them are false, motivated, and time barred.
Rather, it is the mala fide intention on the part of the
Appellant to seek revenge because of the evidence
collected regarding his involvement in the group clash.
Reliance has been placed on the report of the Sub-
Collector, Kovvur, who returned a finding that there was
no mala fide intention on the part of the private
respondents, especially the MRO. The action taken by
him with regard to the allotment of the plots, were
according to the government instructions, leading to the
dropping of the departmental proceedings initiated
against Respondent No. 2 by the department.
14. As regards the evidence which had been collected
against the Appellant during the investigation of the
criminal case of the year 1995 relating to the group
clash, statements were recorded of the injured parties
who had named him, establishing his presence. The
arrest of the Appellant and his family members was
made only after the directions were issued by the Sub-
Collector and the SDM, Kovvur, to the Station House
Officer. Submission has also been made that the
withdrawal of prosecution against the Appellant by the
government at the very initial stage, as ordered, does not
reflect that the Appellant was wrongly implicated as an
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 7 of 13
accused, as evidence of none of the witnesses and their
veracity was tested before the court.
15. That apart, he has supported the High Court judgment,
and the observations made therein which also
acknowledges that the respondents acted on
instructions from their superiors. The factum of there
being a complaint on 16.06.2003, whereas the incident
occurred in May 1995, reflects upon the ill-intention on
the part of the Appellant, as it is delayed and time-
barred. His further submission is that, for invoking
provisions under the SC/ST Act, the mala fide intention
should have been reflected at the very outset, whereas
the same was not present.
16. Going by the contents of the complaint itself, it would
reflect that the same could not be sustained for the
reason that the dispute occurred between two Scheduled
Caste groups, and the same was not driven by caste-
based malice. No independent discretion was exercised,
nor was it with any mala fide intent, either for issuance
of the Pattas or for arresting the Appellant, rather the
same was based upon the official directives from the
Sub-Collector and the District Collector.
17. As regards Respondent No. 2, it is asserted that there
was no substantive evidence on record to reflect
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 8 of 13
involvement in the matter beyond the complainant’s
time-barred assertions. The delay itself casts doubt on
the credibility of the allegations made against them.
Counsel states that the High Court has not considered
the evidence as such, but has, on the basis of justifiable
and well-reasoned conclusions, rendered its judgments
in favour of the respondents. He therefore pressed for
dismissal of the present appeal.
18. Before we proceed to decide the case on merits, it would
be appropriate to mention here that during the pendency
of the present appeal, Accused No. 1 had expired and
vide order dated 12.04.2019 passed in IA No.
25309/2019, the name of Respondent No. 1 stands
deleted from the array of parties at the request of the
Appellant and upon his application. The present appeal,
therefore, cannot proceed qua Appellant No. 1.
19. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the parties, and with their assistance having gone
through the pleadings and upon consideration of the
documents placed on record, we are not inclined to
accept the present appeal.
20. The facts as narrated above indicate that the
prosecution initiated against the private respondents
was based upon a complaint filed by the Appellant on
the dropping of and the withdrawal from prosecution in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 9 of 13
criminal case qua him. It is at this stage that the
allegations of mala fide and wrongful prosecution at the
behest of Respondent No. 2, the MRO, and Accused No.
3, proprietor of Ramakrishna Theatre, who is alleged to
have colluded with Respondent No. 1, the Sub-Inspector
of Police, who was the Investigating Officer. Respondent
No. 1 falsely implicated the Appellant and his younger
brother as accused in the rioting case relating to the
clash between two groups belonging to the Scheduled
Caste. The basis for the mala fide is the complaint which
has been lodged by the Appellant against Respondent
No. 2 for wrongfully allotting two house sites Pattas to
the Kapu community related to Accused No. 3, whereas
the same were reserved for the Scheduled Caste
category.
21. It is an admitted position that, on the complaint,
initially, it was prima facie observed to be correct but on
detailed inquiry and on clarification, it turned out that
the allotment made by Respondent No. 2 was as per the
government instructions. In any case, the cancellation
of allotment had taken place. Therefore, there was no
reason as to why Respondent No. 2 would proceed to
malafidely involve the Appellant and his family in the
case. That apart, since it was admittedly a dispute
between two groups belonging to the Scheduled Caste,
and the clash was not with any other community, rather
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 10 of 13
intra-caste, involvement of the Appellant because of him
being a Scheduled Caste in the criminal case does not
arise, what to say of mala fide . No evidence has been
brought on record which would indicate mala fide
intention on the part of Respondent No. 2 or any
connivance. The bald allegations against the Appellant
would not in itself be sustainable.
22. Perusal of the complaint would also indicate that the
grievance was not really relatable to the false and
malicious involvement in the criminal proceedings
against the Appellant and his family members because
of them belonging to Scheduled Caste. The very intent
being absent, the offences for which the prosecution has
been launched are not made out. That apart, merely
because a number of cases and various litigations are
pending between the Appellant and Respondent No. 2,
in itself cannot be a ground for presuming that the
prosecution initiated against the appellant was at the
behest of and with a false and malicious intent, by now
deceased Respondent No. 1. For attracting the offences,
as alleged to have been committed by the private
respondents, specific instances and incidents supported
by evidence are required to be present, which is missing
in this case.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 11 of 13
23. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
1
Maharashtra , this Court has emphasized that merely
because the complainant belongs to the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes cannot be the sole ground
for prosecution. The offences alleged must have been
committed solely on the basis of the victim’s caste
status. Misuse of the statute to settle personal scores or
to harass individuals cannot be permitted if it is
apparent. The Court should in such situation be not
hesitant to step in and stop the said misuse. Prosecution
needs to be quashed at an early stage to prevent undue
harassment of the accused where there is clear legal
infirmity in the prosecution case, such as the
allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not
disclose an offence or the entire case is a bad faith
exercise weaponized to settle personal scores, rather
than seeking justice ( Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh
2
and others ’).
24. This court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v.
3
State of Maharashtra and another had also observed
that there has been an alarming increase in false
complaints under the SC/ST Act, particularly against
1
(2000) 3 SCC 557
2
(2013) 9 SCC 245
3
(2018) 6 SCC 454
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 12 of 13
public servants and judicial officers with an oblique
motive to settle personal scores or to harass individuals.
Such acts cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and need
to be stopped at the very outset so that there is no
miscarriage of justice.
25. The observations and conclusions arrived at by the High
Court are based upon the proper appreciation of the
pleadings, the correct reading and application of law and
thus, cannot be faulted with. The impugned order dated
15.10.2014 as passed by the High Court being in
accordance with law does not call for any interference.
26. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
……...……….……………………..CJI.
[ B. R. GAVAI ]
……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 23, 2025.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 555 of 2018 Page 13 of 13