Compensation under the SC/ST Act requires proof of an offence; quashing negates entitlement.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking release of ₹8,50,000 as compensation under Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.

The appellant’s brother, Rakesh, allegedly committed suicide by drowning after his wife, Sangeeta, allegedly maintained an illicit relationship with Samarjeet Yadav.

An FIR was registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; a charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed.

The accused thereafter sought quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC.

By order dated 4 January 2023 in M.Cr.C. No. 7331 of 2022, the High Court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, holding that even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC was made out.

The appellant’s writ petition for compensation was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that compensation under Rule 12 is linked to the commission or prima facie establishment of an offence under the Act, and that the foundation for compensation ceased to exist after quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The present writ appeal challenged that dismissal.

1. Whether the appellant, as the brother of the deceased, was entitled to compensation under Rule 12 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 merely because an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act had initially been registered?

2. Whether the appellant could establish that he was a “victim” entitled to relief when the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings had already been quashed for want of a prima facie offence under Section 306 of the IPC?

The Court applied Rule 12(4) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, under which the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or other competent Executive Magistrate must provide relief in cash or kind to victims of atrocities, their family members and dependants according to the prescribed scale.

Section 2(1)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 defines “atrocity” as an offence punishable under Section 3, while Section 2(1)(ec) defines “victim” as a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe who has suffered physical, mental, psychological, emotional or monetary harm, or harm to property, as a result of an offence under the Act, including relatives, legal guardians and legal heirs.

Accordingly, entitlement to compensation requires proof that the claimant suffered the legally recognised harm as a result of the commission of an offence under the Act.

The Court also considered the prior quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC on the basis that no offence under Section 306 of the IPC was prima facie made out.

Rule 12(4) does not create an automatic entitlement to compensation merely because an FIR was registered or proceedings were initially instituted.

The claimant must establish that he is a victim of an offence under the Act and has suffered the specified harm as a consequence of that offence.

In the present case, the criminal proceedings alleging abetment of suicide had been quashed because, even accepting the allegations, the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC were not made out.

Consequently, the appellant could not establish that the deceased’s suicide resulted from a legally constituted offence under the Act or that the appellant himself suffered the qualifying harm contemplated by Section 2(1)(ec).

The Single Judge therefore correctly held that the basis for claiming compensation had disappeared.

The prior quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings meant that no prima facie offence remained upon which a claim for compensation could rest.

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed.