Supreme Court Quashes Atrocities Act Case in Property Dispute: B. Venkateswaran vs. P. Bakthavatchalam (2023)

Date of the Judgment: January 5, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 18
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can a property dispute be twisted into a case of atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, emphasizing that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should not be misused to settle personal scores. In a case involving a property dispute disguised as an atrocity, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, highlighting the importance of genuine grievances over misuse of legal provisions. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute between B. Venkateswaran and others (the appellants) and P. Bakthavatchalam (the respondent). The respondent filed a private complaint alleging that the appellants had encroached upon a pathway adjacent to his property and constructed a temple, thereby obstructing his access to water, sewage, and electricity. The respondent further claimed that this action constituted atrocities under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as he belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

The respondent alleged that the appellants continued the illegal construction despite a High Court order, further preventing him from constructing on his property and criminally intimidating him. The Special Court took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the appellants after recording the respondent’s statement and examining witnesses. The appellants then approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, which was dismissed, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially filed a private complaint in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The Special Court took cognizance of the case after recording the respondent’s sworn statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and examining witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court then issued summons to the appellants. The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court of Judicature at Madras to quash the criminal proceedings, which was dismissed. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. These sections deal with offenses related to the obstruction or interference with the enjoyment of property by a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Specifically:

• Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 states: “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (v) obstructs or prevents a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from using or enjoying any common property, community property, common passage, water source or any other place to which members of public have access;”
• Section 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 states: “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (va) commits any act which is derogatory to, or humiliates, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;”

The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations in the complaint met the requirements of these provisions, particularly whether the obstruction was deliberate and with the knowledge that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants, represented by Shri Nagamuthu, senior counsel, argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, concerning an alleged encroachment on a common pathway and construction of a temple. They contended that the respondent was misusing the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to settle a personal vendetta.

• The appellants highlighted that the temple had been in existence for many years, and prior inspections by the Commissioner of Corporation, Chennai, had found no encroachment. They also pointed out that the respondent himself had allegedly violated building norms.

• The appellants argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the alleged obstruction was done deliberately and with the knowledge that the respondent belonged to a Scheduled Caste. They emphasized that the dispute was a result of a private property issue, not an atrocity.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, appearing in person, argued that the appellants had encroached upon the pathway adjacent to his house and constructed a temple, which obstructed his water pipeline, sewage pipeline, and EB cable. He contended that this action prevented him from enjoying his property.

• The respondent claimed that the illegal construction continued despite a High Court order, and the appellants had also prevented him from constructing on his property and criminally intimidated him. He argued that these actions constituted atrocities under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

• The respondent submitted that the appellants’ actions were specifically targeted at him due to his caste, and hence, the case fell within the ambit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute an offense under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, or is it a private civil dispute being misused as a criminal case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any authorities in this judgment. The court relied on its interpretation of the facts and the relevant provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court examined Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and found that the allegations in the complaint did not satisfy the requirements of the provision, as there was no evidence of deliberate obstruction with the knowledge of the respondent’s caste.*
• The Court examined Section 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and found that the allegations in the complaint did not satisfy the requirements of the provision, as there was no evidence of any derogatory or humiliating act against the respondent in public view.*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Court emphasized that the dispute was essentially a civil matter related to property and construction, rather than an atrocity based on caste.
• The Court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the alleged obstruction was done deliberately and with the knowledge that the respondent belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
• The Court observed that the respondent was misusing the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to settle a personal vendetta, converting a private civil dispute into a criminal case.
• The Court took into account the fact that the temple had been in existence for many years, and prior inspections had found no encroachment.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in not quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should not be used to settle personal scores or to convert civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court stated, “From the material on record, we are satisfied that no case for the offences under Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is made out, even prima facie.” Furthermore, the Court observed, “It appears that a private dispute was going on between the parties with respect to the illegal construction.” The Court also noted, “From the aforesaid, it seems that the private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings.” The Court concluded that the initiation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of process.

The bench was unanimous in its decision, with both judges concurring in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should not be misused to settle personal disputes or convert civil matters into criminal cases.
• For an offense under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to be made out, there must be evidence of deliberate obstruction or humiliation with the knowledge that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
• Courts must scrutinize complaints to ensure that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are not being abused.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants, including the summons issued by the Special Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be invoked to settle private civil disputes. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Act is meant to protect against genuine atrocities and not to be misused for personal vendettas. This clarifies the position of law that the Act is not meant to be used to convert private civil disputes into criminal proceedings and that there should be evidence of deliberate obstruction or humiliation with the knowledge that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

Conclusion

In the case of B. Venkateswaran & Ors. vs. P. Bakthavatchalam, the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings initiated under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, emphasizing that the Act should not be misused to settle private civil disputes. The Court found that the dispute was primarily a property matter and there was no evidence to suggest that the alleged obstruction was done deliberately and with the knowledge that the respondent belonged to a Scheduled Caste. This judgment serves as a reminder that the Atrocities Act is meant to protect against genuine atrocities and not to be used as a tool for personal vendettas.