2025 INSC 1402
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIVISION BENCH
AMAL KUMAR AND OTHERS
Vs.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )
Criminal Appeal No…..of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5913 of 2025)
Decided on : 09-12-2025
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
B. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(g) — Wrongful dispossession — Ingredients — Accused purchased property under a registered sale deed and was in possession — Allegations of wrongful dispossession under Section 3(1)(g) cannot be sustained when land is covered by a legitimate sale deed in favour of the accused (notwithstanding dispute over title) and where possession was already with the accused — Facts do not support ‘wrongful dispossession’ of a member of SC/ST. (Para 10)
C. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(s) — Intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view — Ingredients — Allegation of casteist slur must be made in a place within public view or where a member of the public was present — Where the record indicated no such fulfillment of the essential condition of ‘public view’, the allegation under Section 3(1)(s) is unsustainable. (Para 10)
D. Criminal Law — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Civil dispute vs. Criminal case — While a civil dispute and criminal case can arise from the same set of facts, when the criminal complaint appears to be a counterblast to an earlier complaint by the accused, or heavily contradicted by the informant’s own simultaneous civil suit (where key criminal allegations are omitted), the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of the process of law. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 10)
JUDGMENT
K. Vinod Chandran, J. – Leave granted.
2. The appellants arrayed as accused in FIR No.18 of 2022 in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi were before the High Court for quashing of the FIR registered. The High Court, by the impugned judgment refused to quash the FIR, finding that there is a direct and specific allegation against the appellants of having criminally conspired to interfere with the possession of the subject land owned by the informant, which they attempted by fabricating documents. The informant being a member of a scheduled caste was abused using the caste name and together these constitute offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(g) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[1]. The appellants’ contention that there was only a civil dispute between the parties, pending in a civil court, was found to be not sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings since it is trite that on the same set of facts there could be a civil dispute and criminal case lodged.
[1] for brevity ‘the Act of 1989’
3. Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the first appellant had purchased a property from the vendee of the other appellants in the year 2020 and was in possession of the same. It was one Pankaj Singh who instigated the informant to lodge the FIR and file a civil case against the appellants, since the first appellant failed to succumb to an attempt to extort an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) from him. In fact, the very same complainant had filed a case against another person also at the instigation of the said Pankaj Singh. It is contended that appellant No.1 had lodged a complaint of interference with his property and demolition of the structure therein by Annexure P8 of 20.01.2022 and the subject FIR lodged on 25.01.2025 was a counter blast. The allegation in the FIR was regarding an alleged incident on 21.01.2022, which occurred in the subject property. Not only was the FIR filed belatedly on 25.01.2022 but a suit filed on the same date, with respect to the very same property, did not indicate such an incident having occurred.
4. Mr. Abhishek Rai, learned counsel appearing for the informant/second respondent argued that the appellants are involved in a racket of grabbing properties belonging to SC/ST. Documents are fabricated and possession clearly taken over from the informant, which led to the filing of the criminal case. There is absolutely no reason to quash the proceedings at this stage since the appellants would have every right to disprove the case set up by the informant in a trial before the Jurisdictional Court.
5. Mr. P.S. Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for the State, first respondent, supported the registration of the FIR and argued that the investigation has to be completed and submission of report by the police upon the appellants would have their remedy before the Trial Court.
6. As we see from the records one Smt. Pratibha Jha had purchased the subject land, from appellants 2, 3 and one Ashraf Ansari sons of Late Moujim Ansari, by Annexure P2. The first appellant purchased the said land from the vendee in Annexure P2 as per Annexure P4 sale deed on 07.02.2020. It is seen that title of the appellants 2 and 3 and one another person was confirmed by Annexure P1 order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as early as on 17.01.2012 after which the sale of 2014 occurred. The first appellant had also raised a complaint as we see from Annexure P8, against one Pankaj Singh on 20.01.2022; for attempting extortion of money and for levelling threats against the life of the first appellant.
7. Be that as it may, on 25.01.2022 simultaneously a suit was filed by second respondent, produced as Annexure P9 and an FIR lodged, which is produced as Annexure P10. In the FIR it was claimed that the appellants 2 to 5 had created forged documents to sell the same to the first appellant who had been illegally occupying the subject land. It is also claimed that the appellants/accused came to the subject land on 21.01.2022 and forcefully started building a boundary wall; presumably the contention was that the land was in her possession. There is also a further allegation that appellants 4 and 6 hurled abuses on the informant specifically mentioning the caste name, which is a casteist slur.
8. As has been argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the plaint, Annexure P9, registered on the same date does not indicate an incident having occurred as is described in the First Information Statement (FIS). In the plaint the cause of action is traced to the month of September 2020 and several other days when the rights of the plaintiff over the scheduled land was attempted to be interfered with, the last of which occurrence is said to be in December 2021. The incident as on 21.01.2022 is not at all mentioned.
9. We have also seen that the vendor of the first appellant is not the other appellants and is a third party who has not been impleaded either in the suit or arrayed as an accused in the criminal case lodged. Further, when there is no allegation of dispossession of land as such in the FIS, in the suit filed on the very same day, one of the reliefs sought is for recovery of possession. The sale deed of the first appellant is in the year 2020 and the other appellants obtained the property in the year 2014. There is no relief claimed in the suit to set aside the above sale deeds.
10. We are inclined to find that in the totality of the circumstances as noticed above, the FIR based on the FIS is a clear abuse of process of law. From the records of the suit as has been filed by the first informant, the allegations in the FIS does not come out. As of now the land is covered by a sale deed in favour of the first appellant. There can be no question of an offence being charged under Section 2 (3)(g) of the Act of 1989, of wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe from their land. Likewise, there is no offence as coming out under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989 since there is no allegation that the casteist slur was made in a place within public view or that there was any member of the public present at the spot. In any event, the allegations in the FIS itself are found to be unbelievable going by the clear averments made in the suit filed on the very same day. The High Court, in the circumstances, ought to have quashed the FIR. Having not done so we set aside the order of the High Court and quash FIR No.18 of 2020 registered in Police Station Kanke, Ranchi and direct that no further proceedings shall be taken by the police against the arrayed accused in pursuance of the said FIR. The appeal stands allowed.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.