SC/ST Act FIR quashed as belated casteist allegations constitute an afterthought to an administrative dispute.

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) are both Associate Professors at Lakshmibai College, Delhi

On August 16, 2021, during a departmental meeting regarding NAAC accreditation, a dispute arose when the Complainant refused to sign the minutes without a lengthy review

The Complainant alleged the Petitioner snatched the register and slapped her

The Complainant filed initial handwritten complaints with the Principal and the Police on the same day (August 16, 2021), neither of which mentioned casteist remarks or humiliation based on her Scheduled Caste (SC) status

On August 17, 2021, a subsequent complaint was filed introducing allegations of caste-based insults

Consequently, FIR No. 0512/2021 was registered on August 23, 2021, under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The Petitioner moved the High Court to quash the FIR

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and subsequent complaints, viewed against the initial omissions, prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act

2. Whether the FIR regarding Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC can be sustained in view of the procedural requirements for non-cognizable offences

Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which requires "intentional insult" or "abuse by caste name" in public view with the specific intent to humiliate a member of a SC/ST community

Supreme Court’s decision in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (2024), which mandates that the act must be committed specifically because of the victim's caste identity

Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., which prohibits the police from investigating or registering an FIR for non-cognizable offences (such as Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC) without a Magistrate's order

The court observed that the genesis of the dispute was an administrative disagreement over signing meeting minutes, not the Complainant's caste identity

It noted a significant discrepancy: the Complainant’s initial complaints on the day of the incident were silent regarding casteist remarks, which only surfaced as a "belated addition" and "afterthought" in complaints dated August 17, 2021, and onwards

The court found the allegations of casteist slurs lacked specificity and were uncorroborated by the majority of witnesses, with only one witness providing a statement that contradicted the Complainant’s own initial version

The Complainant’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was deemed vague and failed to establish a clear nexus between the alleged assault and a caste-based motive

Furthermore, since Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC are non-cognizable, the court held that the FIR could not legally proceed without compliance with Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C.

It held that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the intent to humiliate must be based specifically on caste identity, which was absent here as the caste element was a manifest afterthought to a private professional dispute

The court further held that the IPC charges were procedurally unsustainable as the FIR was registered without a Magistrate’s order for non-cognizable offences

The Complainant remains at liberty to seek remedies for the alleged physical assault (Section 323 IPC) through appropriate legal channels