Cognizance of SC/ST Act offences quashed for manifest malice and pre-existing land disputes.

The appellant moved the High Court to quash an order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, which took cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 alleging that the appellant used caste-based slurs and committed assault

Previously, the appellant’s father won a Title Suit (No. 63/2003) declaring Respondent No. 2 an encroacher; subsequently, a Writ Petition (CWJC No. 17685/2009) resulted in the quashing of Respondent No. 1’s land documents (Basgit Purcha)

Preventive proceedings under Section 107 CrPC had also been recommended against the respondent prior to the filing of the complaint

1. Whether the order taking cognizance was passed in a mechanical manner amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court

2. Whether the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and credible enough to sustain a trial given the history of litigation between the parties

The Court applied Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, regarding the maintainability of the appeal against an order taking cognizance

It further relied on the inherent principle that judicial process should not be used as an instrument of oppression or for malicious prosecution, particularly when the genesis of the occurrence is inherently unbelievable

The Court also scrutinized the requirements for taking cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code

The Court observed that the trial court's order was "mechanical and without reasons"

Upon examining the records, the Court found the prosecution's story—specifically that the appellant would give clothes to the respondent for washing/ironing—to be "wholly unbelievable" given the extreme litigious bitterness and the fact that the appellant had successfully evicted the respondent through civil and writ proceedings

The Court noted that the inquiry witnesses were closely related to the complainant and were "on inimical terms" with the appellant due to prior legal representations made by him

Consequently, the Court determined that the complaint was filed with malicious intent, and forcing the appellant to stand trial would constitute a gross abuse of the judicial process

The High Court set aside the order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, and allowed the appeal, thereby quashing the proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 95(C) of 2017