SC/ST Act land offences require wrongful occupation, not merely a competing title dispute.

The third respondent alleged that he belonged to the Adi Dravidar community and that land originally held by his family was conditional-assignment land.

He alleged that the petitioners trespassed on and cultivated the land despite knowing its status, and attempted to dispossess him and his father.

The petitioners claimed longstanding possession through their predecessors and contended that the dispute concerned competing civil claims to title and possession.

A civil suit concerning the property was pending when the complaint was lodged.

Following investigation, the Special Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

1. Whether the materials disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act, including wrongful occupation or cultivation of land belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

2. Whether the proceedings should be quashed where the dispute was essentially civil and the materials did not disclose the foundational facts of the alleged offences.

The Court considered Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the source of its jurisdiction to quash proceedings, and Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It stated that, to attract Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g), the materials must disclose wrongful occupation or cultivation of land belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by a person outside those communities; “wrongfully” includes occupation or cultivation against the person’s will or without consent, or fabrication of records relating to the land.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not separately set out or analyse the ingredients of Section 3(1)(p).

The Court treated the dispute as one concerning title and possession, noting the parties’ competing claims and the petitioners’ and their predecessors’ claimed possession over several decades.

It found that the materials did not establish that the petitioners had wrongfully dispossessed the third respondent, occupied or cultivated the land against his will or without consent, or fabricated records.

The pending civil suit and the timing of the complaint further supported the Court’s view that the criminal proceedings arose from an essentially civil dispute and should not be used to exert pressure in it.

On that basis, the Court held that the foundational ingredients of Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) were absent.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.