Supreme Court Upholds Cognizance of Offence Under Atrocities Act Despite Political Rivalry: Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. (20 April 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 439
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a criminal case be quashed simply because it arises from political rivalry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, also known as the Atrocities Act. The court examined whether a criminal complaint, alleging caste-based abuse and attempted abduction, should be dismissed due to the underlying political tensions between the parties involved.

The core issue was whether a court other than the designated Special Court under the Atrocities Act could take cognizance of offenses under the Act. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarifies the legal position on this matter, while also emphasizing that allegations of political vendetta do not automatically invalidate a criminal complaint if the allegations disclose an offense. The bench comprised Justices Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, with the judgment authored by Justice Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The case revolves around a long-standing political rivalry between Petitioner No. 1, Ramveer Upadhyay, and Devendra Aggarwal, a former Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). This rivalry has manifested in multiple electoral contests and legal disputes. The current case stems from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, alleging caste-based abuse and an attempt to abduct him by the Petitioners.

The dispute began with a complaint by Smt. Meera Devi, wife of Respondent No.2, on January 1, 2010. She alleged that Respondent No. 2 had been abducted by the brothers of Petitioner No. 1 to force him to vote in their favor during the 2010 MLC election. She further alleged that the Petitioner had abused the Respondent No. 2 using casteist slurs. On the same day, Devendra Aggarwal also wrote to the District Magistrate, stating that the Petitioners had abused Respondent No. 2 using casteist slurs.

On January 2, 2010, Meera Devi filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, seeking directions to the Station House Officer (SHO) to register her complaint of abduction. This led to the registration of Crime Case No. 17/2010. However, after investigation, the police filed a closure report, stating that the complaint was filed due to political animosity. Meera Devi’s protest petition was dismissed, and the High Court did not interfere. Following orders from the Supreme Court, further investigation was conducted by the CB-CID, which also filed a final report in favor of the Petitioners on October 17, 2018. Meera Devi’s protest petition against this report was also rejected on September 5, 2020.

In February 2017, Petitioner No. 1 and Devendra Aggarwal again contested against each other in the Assembly elections. During the campaign on February 8, 2017, it is alleged that Devendra Aggarwal attacked Petitioner No. 1’s son and his supporters, resulting in the death of one Pushpendra Singh. An FIR was lodged against Devendra Aggarwal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On October 26, 2017, Respondent No. 2 filed an application alleging that Petitioner No. 1 and his assistant, Petitioner No. 2, along with others, abused him using casteist slurs and attempted to abduct him on September 1, 2017. He sought directions to the SHO to register a case against the Petitioners.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Following the application by Respondent No. 2, a case was registered as Complaint Case No. 19/2018. The Respondent No. 2 was examined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The statements of Respondent No. 2, Annu, and Yogesh Gupta were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

The case was transferred to the Additional District and Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Hathras, due to Petitioner No. 1 being a legislator/former legislator, following directions from the High Court and the Supreme Court to expedite cases against legislators.

On September 17, 2021, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Hathras, took cognizance of the charges against the Petitioners and issued summons. The Petitioners then filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings.

The High Court admitted the application on January 5, 2022, and stayed further proceedings. However, on March 7, 2022, the High Court rejected the application, leading to the Petitioners’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which deals with the establishment of Special Courts for the trial of offenses under the Act. The second proviso to Section 14, inserted by Act 1 of 2016, states:

“Provided further that the Courts so established or specified shall have power to directly take cognizance of offences under this Act.”

This provision grants Special Courts the power to directly take cognizance of offenses under the Atrocities Act. The question arose whether this provision implies that only the Special Court can take cognizance, or if a Magistrate can also take cognizance and then commit the case to the Special Court.

Other relevant provisions include:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the examination of the complainant by the Magistrate.
• Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the power of the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The Petitioners argued that the case was a classic example of malicious prosecution due to political animosity.
• They contended that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Hathras, lacked the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offense.
• They emphasized that Section 14 of the Atrocities Act stipulates that only the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act is competent to pass an order for the issuance of summons.
• They argued that the High Court should have quashed the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
• They submitted that the complaint was a gross abuse of the process of the Court.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Respondent No. 2 argued that the Additional District and Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to take cognizance.
• They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors. [2021 SCC Online SC 974], which held that the Special Court is not the only court that can take cognizance of offenses under the Atrocities Act.
• They contended that the allegations in the complaint made out an offense under the Atrocities Act.

The innovativeness of the argument of the petitioners was that they relied on a literal interpretation of Section 14 of the Atrocities Act to contend that only the Special Court can take cognizance of offenses under the Act. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, relying on its earlier judgment in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya (supra).

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether in a case where cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate and thereafter the case is committed to the learned Special Court, whether entire criminal proceedings can be said to have been vitiated considering the second proviso to Section 14 of the Atrocities Act which was inserted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the point of jurisdiction of the Special Court under the Atrocities Act:

• Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors. [2021 SCC Online SC 974] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the Special Court under the Atrocities Act is not the only court that can take cognizance of offenses under the Act. A Magistrate can also take cognizance and commit the case to the Special Court.

On the point of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:

• Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of U.P. [(2008) 8 SCC 781] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.
• Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar [AIR 1990 SC 494] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that interference under Section 482 is justified when the complaint does not disclose any offense or is patently frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
• Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others [(1987) 1 SCC 288] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.
• State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh [(1980) 2 SCC 471] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that if the use of power is for the fulfillment of a legitimate object, the actuation or catalysation by malice is not legicidal.
• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. [(1983) 1 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute.
• Raj Kapoor v. State [(1980) 1 SCC 43] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances.
• Smt Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [(1976) 3 SCC 736] – Supreme Court of India: The Court laid down the guidelines and grounds on which proceedings could be quashed.
• Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar [(1977) 1 SCC 505] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that where the allegations set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute any offense, it is competent to the High Court to quash the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offense.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gourieshetty Mahesh [(2010) 6 SCC 588] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether the evidence is reliable or not.
• Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttrakhand [(2013) 11 SCC 673] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that the power under Section 482 is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
• Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988) 1 SCC 692] – Supreme Court of India: The Court summarized the law with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
• Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [(2007) 12 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India: The Court observed that the court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment.
• Kapil Agarwal & Ors. V. Sanjay Sharma & Others [(2021) 5 SCC 524] – Supreme Court of India: The Court observed that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is designed to achieve the purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings are not permitted to generate into weapons of harassment.
• State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335] – Supreme Court of India: The Court laid down categories of cases where the power under Section 482 could be exercised.
• Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed and Others [(2008) 1 SCC 474] – Supreme Court of India: The Court held that ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent on hearing appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Deals with the establishment of Special Courts.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the examination of the complainant by the Magistrate.
• Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with the power of the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process.

Judgment

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Petitioners. The Court held that the High Court was justified in not interfering with the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, who had taken cognizance of the offenses and issued summons to the Petitioners.

Flowchart of the Legal Process

Key Takeaways

• The Special Court under the Atrocities Act is not the only court that can take cognizance of offenses under the Act. A Magistrate can also take cognizance and commit the case to the Special Court.
• Political rivalry or animosity is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations in the complaint disclose an offense.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with caution, and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
• The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint made out an offense under the Atrocities Act.
• The Court also emphasized that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. State of U.P. clarifies the legal position regarding cognizance of offenses under the Atrocities Act. The Court has reaffirmed that a Magistrate can take cognizance of offenses under the Act and commit the case to the Special Court. The judgment also emphasizes that political rivalry is not a valid ground to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose an offense. This judgment is significant as it upholds the spirit of the Atrocities Act and ensures that the law is not misused to settle political scores. It also highlights the importance of a careful and cautious approach by the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.