The Delhi High Court has imposed a fine of ₹20,000 on a litigant for misusing the victim compensation scheme under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) filed by Balbir Meena, challenging the judgment dated November 27, 2024, passed by the single judge.
“In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that suitable costs ought to be imposed against the appellant so as to deter him and any such person from misusing and abusing the Victim Compensation Scheme formulated under the Act.” — Court
Read also:- Wife’s Allegations of Infidelity and Public Humiliation Amount to Cruelty: Bombay High Court
In the background of the case, the appellant had filed FIR No. 337/2019 on August 23, 2019. He demanded ₹1,00,000 as compensation under the victim compensation scheme. Although the chargesheet was filed in October 2019, he was granted only ₹10,000 through a sanction order dated August 21, 2020. He challenged this partial amount in court.
Balbir Meena argued that he was entitled to 75% of the total ₹4,15,000 compensation based on the three stages: registration of FIR, filing of chargesheet, and conviction of the accused.
However, the Delhi High Court rejected this claim stating that the petitioner had voluntarily entered into a settlement with the accused, and the FIR was quashed based on that settlement.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Disinheritance of Natural Heirs Without Reason in Will Raises Suspicion
“The compensation mechanism is intended to support the victim throughout legal proceedings, not to serve as an instrument for financial gain post-settlement.” — Delhi High Court
The Court further noted that the petitioner had earlier filed another FIR (No. 440/2014) against the same accused Rakesh Singh under the same Act and received ₹2,40,000 compensation at that time.
“It is noteworthy that in the present case too, the FIR was registered under the same provisions against the same person, Rakesh Singh. These instances raise grave doubts about the authenticity and veracity of the appellant’s version.” — Court
Read also:- Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules Revenue Record Entries Cannot Be Disproved by Affidavit Alone
Observing the repeated use of the scheme, the Court treated it as abuse and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the appellant, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. If not paid, the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
“Compensation is a means to facilitate justice, not an end in itself. If legal proceedings are discontinued due to a settlement, the State cannot be forced to pay compensation.” — Court observation
Thus, the Court made it clear that the scheme aims to ensure social justice and not personal benefit, and misuse of such laws goes against the intent of the legislation.
Title: BALBIR MEENA v. STATE GOVT NCT OF DELHI AND ORS