New Delhi, April 10 The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR lodged against an Associate Professor of Lakshmibai College over allegations of assault and caste-based abuse, observing that allegations of caste-based humiliation were introduced as an “afterthought” and lacked the essential ingredients required to invoke provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Allowing a writ petition filed by Ranjit Kaur, a single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside an FIR registered in 2021 at Bharat Nagar police station under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, along with all consequential proceedings.
The case arose from an incident dated August 16, 2021, during a departmental meeting concerning NAAC-related work, where an altercation allegedly took place between the petitioner and the complainant, Dr. Neelam, both serving as Associate Professors in the same college.
The complainant alleged that she was slapped and humiliated in the presence of colleagues.
In its order, the Delhi High Court noted that the complainant’s initial handwritten complaints made on the same day to both the college principal and the police contained no allegation of caste-based remarks or humiliation on account of her Scheduled Caste identity.
“The caste element appears for the first time only in the complaint dated 17.08.2021 to the Principal, as a belated addition to an already narrated version of events,” Justice Krishna observed.
Examining the statutory requirements under the SC/ST Act, the Delhi High Court said that for an offence to be made out, there must be a clear and specific allegation that the accused intentionally insulted or humiliated the victim on account of her caste identity.
“It is not sufficient that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and that she was subjected to ill-treatment or a physical altercation. The nexus between the alleged act and the caste identity of the victim must be clearly and unequivocally established from the very face of the complaint,” the order said.
It further stated that even in subsequent complaints and statements, including the one recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the allegations of casteist remarks remained “vague and general” without attribution of specific words.
The Delhi High Court also found that only one witness, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had attributed specific casteist remarks to the petitioner, which remained uncorroborated by other witnesses.
“A statement of a single witness attributing specific casteist remarks, which the complainant herself never once specifically corroborated, cannot form the basis of a charge under the SC/ST Act,” it held.
On the IPC offences, Justice Sharma observed that Sections 323 and 504 are non-cognisable in nature and an FIR could not have been registered without prior approval of the Magistrate as required under Section 155(2) CrPC.
“The FIR, therefore, cannot sustain itself on the basis of these offences either,” the order added.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be legally sustainable and allowed the petition.
“In light of the observations made above, the petition is allowed and the FIR… and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed,” it ordered.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor