The Jharkhand High Court has quashed an FIR filed against a government officer under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court held that since the informant did not belong to a notified Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the provisions of the SC/ST Act could not be applied.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, while delivering the verdict in W.P. (Cr.) No. 1146 of 2023, emphasized:
Read Also:- Karnataka HC Pauses SC/ST Act Case Against Infosys Co-Founder Kris Gopalakrishnan and 17 IISc Faculty
"Unless the name of the caste or tribe is included in the public notification made by the President of India under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, such a person cannot be treated as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."
The case involved a public servant, Sunil Kumar, who was accused of insulting and using obscene language against a woman who approached him with a Right to Information (RTI) application. The FIR alleged that he called her an “insane Adivasi” and pushed her out of his chamber, humiliating her in public view.
The Court observed that the term “Adivasi” alone does not confer the status of a Scheduled Tribe unless it is specifically listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Referring to Part XXII of the Order applicable to Jharkhand, the judge noted:
Read Also:- Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds SC/ST Reservation in Promotions, Blocks Unlawful Appointments
"The caste Adivasi does not appear in the public notification for Jharkhand. There is no indication that the informant belongs to any recognized Scheduled Caste or Tribe."
Due to this, the court concluded that the essential requirements under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were not met. It also pointed out that the FIR incorrectly cited a non-existent “SC/ST Act, 2016,” making the registration legally flawed.
Regarding the IPC sections invoked—such as Sections 354 (outraging modesty), 341 (wrongful restraint), 504, 506, and 323—the Court found that the FIR lacked sufficient allegations to support these charges. Particularly, it held:
"There is no clear indication that the accused intended to outrage the modesty of the informant or that any criminal force was used in such a manner."
Since the accused was a public servant acting in his official capacity at the time of the incident, the Court ruled that continuing criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of legal process.
Ultimately, the FIR was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
