New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday, October 25 observed that the apex court and high courts have the power to quash criminal cases filed under various ‘special statutes’ by invoking Article 142 of the Indian constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), LiveLaw reported.
Article 142 of the constitution deals with the enforcement of decrees and orders of the Supreme Court while Section 482 of the CrPC deals with saving the inherent powers of the high court.
The observations were made by a three-judge bench of the top court comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli. The bench observed that, “The mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would not refrain this court or the high court from exercising their respective powers”.
The court’s remarks came while hearing the case of Ramawatar versus State of Madhya Pradesh pertaining to a FIR filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The case revolved around a dispute over the ownership rights of a piece of land between the appellant, one Prembai and the complainant. Prembai reportedly threw a brick at the complainant and used a slur aimed at her caste.
Consequently, an FIR was lodged under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act (when a person not belonging to a SC or ST intentionally insults, with intent to humiliate, a member of an SC or ST in any place within public view), read with IPC Section 34 (an act done by several people in furtherance of a common intention). The appellant was, thereafter, convicted of offences under these two sections.
It was also submitted to the court that, since the time the incident took place, in 1994, the two parties have settled their dispute.
Also read: ‘Law Can’t Be Retrospective’: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of Flouting COVID Norms
On quashing cases under ‘special statutes’
In light of this case, the apex court delineated two broad situations in which the court’s (and a high court’s) quashing power could be invoked when dealing with cases filed under special statutes:
- When the court is satisfied that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature or when this offence has not been committed on account of the victim’s caste or where the continuation of legal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process of law.
- When considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement between the two parties, the court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the SC/ST Act would not be contravened if the crime goes unpunished.
The bench also noted that if there is even a hint of force detected in the settlement, the matter cannot be quashed since people belonging to SCs and STs are more prone to coercion and thus must be accorded with a higher level of protection.
Also read: Philosophy Trumped Settled Principles of Law in Denying Bail to Sharjeel Imam
Caveats to the court’s observations
The court went on to add certain caveats to its observations. With specific reference to Article 142 of the constitution and Section 482 of the CrPC, the court noted that these powers can only be invoked in post-conviction matters where an appeal is existing before judicial forums. It substantiated this observation by invoking the premise that “an order of conviction does not attain finality until the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies”.
The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non (absolutely essential) to involve the Superior Court’s plenary powers to do complete justice,” the court observed.
Conversely, the court observed that, to prevent the accused from gaining “indefinite leverage”, the court cannot annul proceedings on the basis of compromise if all legal remedies have been attained.
The bench also said that, while it’s quashing powers under the aforementioned Article are far-reaching and cannot be seen as a limitation on its power to do “complete justice”, it is obliged to take note of relevant laws and regulate its power and discretion accordingly.
With specific reference to ‘special statutes’, such as the SC/ST Act, the court noted that it needs to be “extremely circumspect” in its approach since this act in particular has been enacted to protect an especially vulnerable section of society from suffering atrocities, which they continue to be subject to, the Indian Express reported. The Act has been enacted to protect these groups’ fundamental rights and the court must Act to protect the members of these vulnerable communities.
Also read: The Evidentiary Irregularities in Aryan Khan’s Bail Order
The case at hand
While quashing the proceedings of the case at hand, the court provided several specific reasons.
Firstly, it noted that, despite provisions of the SC/ST Act being invoked, the matter is primarily private in nature, emerging from a pre-existing civil dispute between the parties.
Next the court opined that the appellant did not exhibit any “mental depravity” while committing the offence since they also belong to an economically weaker section of society. What’s more, the two parties live in adjoining houses and there is no segregation between them on the basis of caste, therefore the quashing of proceedings would not circumvent the intentions of the SC/ST Act.
Third, the bench observed that the incident took place a long time ago, in 1994 and that there is no other such incident on the record before or after their purported compromise, thus indicating that the appellant is not a “repeat offender”.
Fourth, the court noted that the complainant has entered into this compromise of their own accord and has decided to drop the current criminal proceedings. Moreover, given the nature of the offence, the court observed, it is immaterial that the trial against the appellant is completed.
Finally, given that the two parties are neighbours, the court noted that it had no reason to believe that they have not voluntarily settled their dispute. So as to not revive old wounds and to “advance peace and harmony”, the present settlement should be effectuated.