GPA holder lacks locus to file criminal complaint for SC/ST Act offences without specific authorization from the victim.

Respondent No. 2 (complainant), claiming to be the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of one Fakiri Kisan Gangave (a member of a Scheduled Tribe), filed a private complaint (Criminal M.A. No. 179 of 2024) alleging that the appellants encroached upon and illegally transferred tribal land in Gut No. 311.

The complainant alleged the appellants used fabricated sale deeds to grab land protected under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC).

On 16.05.2025, the Special Court issued process against the appellants for offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The appellants challenged this order, arguing the complainant lacked locus standi and that revenue records classified the land as Class-1 (non-tribal).

Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which penalize the wrongful occupation or transfer of land belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.

Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC), which restrict the transfer of occupancies of tribals to non-tribals.

Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the investigation of complaints before issuing process.

The legal distinction between acting "by" an entity versus "on behalf of" an entity under agency law.

The Court observed that while any person can generally set the criminal law in motion under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the specific nature of the SC & ST Act requires the involvement of the victim.

The Court found that the GPA produced by Respondent No. 2 did not specifically authorize the filing of criminal proceedings on behalf of the victim, Fakiri Kisan Gangave, who was not a party to the complaint.

The Court analyzed the Section 202 Cr.P.C. report submitted by the Investigating Officer, which cited Sub-Registrar records stating that the land in the name of Appellant No. 1 (3 Hectare 22 R) was "Class-1" land and not categorized as tribal land.

Since the complainant failed to produce substantial evidence showing the land was prohibited from transfer under the MLRC, the Court determined that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent.

The trial court was found to have issued process in a "mechanical manner" without addressing these legal and factual discrepancies.

The High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order dated 16.05.2025, and Criminal M.A. No. 179 of 2024 was dismissed.