Vague, omnibus allegations lacking statutory ingredients cannot sustain prosecution under the SC/ST Act.

The petitioners, including elected members of Kondarajanahalli Grama Panchayat, were arraigned as accused Nos. 1–4 in Crime No. 312 of 2021 for offences under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”)

Before the complaint was filed, the petitioners and other Panchayat members had submitted representations to the Deputy Commissioner and other officials alleging interference and threats by the complainant’s husband

The petitioners challenged the cognizance order and subsequent proceedings in Special Case (SC/ST Act) No. 38 of 2021, contending that the complaint was retaliatory and did not disclose the alleged offences

1. Whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed the essential particulars necessary to sustain offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act

2. Whether the proceedings for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC could continue in the absence of independent material supporting those charges

3. Whether the pending criminal proceedings against the petitioners warranted quashing in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the proceedings

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act

It applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the complaint and collected material do not disclose the requisite basis for the alleged offences and their continuation would be futile

The Court found that the complaint contained only omnibus allegations and did not provide particulars sufficient to invoke Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act

It also considered the timing of the complaint in light of the earlier representations made by the Panchayat members and treated the complaint as a counterblast to those representations

As to the IPC offences, the material consisted of witness statements, but the Court found no independent evidence beyond what it described as self-serving testimony

In those circumstances, it concluded that continuing the prosecution would be futile