Court finds allegations of caste-based insult unsubstantiated, citing professional jealousy as the root cause.
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has quashed proceedings against Moumita Bhattacharya, a Sanskrit scholar, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court found that the allegations made in the FIR did not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act. The judgment, delivered by Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, emphasized that professional jealousy and personal vendetta do not equate to caste-based humiliation or an offence under the Act.
The case originated from a complaint by an Assistant Professor, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, who accused Bhattacharya of professional misconduct and caste-based humiliation. The complainant alleged that Bhattacharya, exploiting her position as Head of the Sanskrit Department, obstructed his professional growth and humiliated him in public. However, the court found no evidence in the complaint or subsequent investigation to support these claims as caste-based.
Justice Das highlighted the necessity of proving intentional insult or intimidation linked to caste identity to establish an offence under the SC/ST Act. The court reiterated the guidelines laid out in previous Supreme Court rulings, particularly emphasizing that not all insults or intimidations qualify as caste-based offences unless they are explicitly due to the victim's caste identity.
The court also invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to prevent misuse of criminal proceedings as a tool of harassment. The judgment underscored that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not meet the threshold required to constitute a cognizable offence under the SC/ST Act.
In conclusion, the court ordered the quashing of all proceedings against Bhattacharya, stating that the case fell into the category where allegations, even if true, did not constitute an offence as per the Bhajanlal guidelines. The decision marks a reaffirmation of judicial scrutiny in cases involving the SC/ST Act, ensuring that proceedings are not misused for personal vendetta or harassment.
Bottom Line:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations made in FIR, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act - Professional jealousy and personal vendetta cannot constitute caste-based humiliation or offence under the Act.
Statutory provision(s):
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(r); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482.
Moumita Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2852273
