Cognizance under the SC/ST Act is impermissible if the complainant does not belong to a protected community.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the cognizance order was passed mechanicaly without the application of judicial mind

The court held

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the cognizance order dated 07.11.2019. It held that since the complainant is not a member of the SC/ST community, the foundation for charges under the SC/ST Act was nonexistent

It also directed

The learned trial court was directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance in accordance with the law and on the merits of the IPC offenses without being prejudiced by this judgment

01Facts

The Appellants challenged a cognizance order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Siwan, in Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 346 of 2017

p. 1

The case originated from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 (Shivji Lohar) regarding a fishing dispute, alleging offenses under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act

p. 2

The Appellants contended that the complaint was filed with a three-and-a-half-month delay without explanation, failed to comply with the mandatory affidavit requirement under Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., and that the complainant did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe

pp. 2-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the cognizance order was passed mechanicaly without the application of judicial mind

p. 2

ii.2. Whether an individual belonging to the "Lohar" caste is entitled to the protections of the SC/ST Act

p. 3

iii.3. Whether the procedural non-compliance of filing an affidavit as per the Priyanka Srivastava mandate vitiates the complaint process

pp. 2-3

03Law Applied

Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which requires the victim to belong to a protected community

p. 3

Sunil Kumar Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1052 of 2021), which settled that the "Lohar" caste does not fall within the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes

p. 3

Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 287, requiring a supporting affidavit when a complaint seeks a police investigation under Section 154(3) CrPC

pp. 2-3

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 341 Section 323 Section 504 Section 506

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 107 Section 154

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the impugned order appeared to be in a pre-typed format with only the word "cognizance" inserted, indicating a "negligent and mechanical approach" by the trial court

p. 2

On the merits, the Court found that Respondent No. 2, being of the "Lohar" community, is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the fundamental prerequisite for invoking the SC/ST Act was absent

p. 3

The Court also noted the procedural defect regarding the lack of an affidavit and the unexplained delay of three and a half months in filing the complaint. Consequently, the Court held that the trial court failed to apply its judicial mind when taking cognizance of the offenses, particularly under the SC/ST Act

pp. 2-3

05Holding

pp. 3-4

The learned trial court was directed to pass a fresh order regarding cognizance in accordance with the law and on the merits of the IPC offenses without being prejudiced by this judgment

p. 4

LawLens.Patna High Court

Original Court PDF