Court Denies Quashing Petition, Emphasizes Need for Trial in Alleged Theft and Trespass Involving Scheduled Tribe Community
The Calcutta High Court, presided by Justice Uday Kumar, has rejected a petition to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving allegations of theft, trespass, and caste-based slurs against the Santhal Scheduled Tribe community. The case, originating from Rampurhat P.S. Case No. 365 of 2021, centers on the alleged forceful felling and removal of approximately 1,000 trees from a garden owned by Surjamin Soren, a member of the Santhal tribe.
The petitioners, Idel SK @ Gaba SK and another, sought to have the proceedings quashed, arguing that the criminal charges were a strategic tool to exert undue leverage in a civil dispute over land and timber sale proceeds. They contended that the initiation of the criminal process lacked procedural integrity, citing the absence of a mandatory affidavit with the initial Section 156(3) CrPC petition, which they claimed rendered the subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
However, the court found that procedural lapses at the inception stage, such as the absence of an affidavit, are curable irregularities when substantiated by investigative findings. Justice Kumar emphasized that the investigation has progressed beyond mere allegations, with the Charge Sheet disclosing prima facie evidence of cognizable offences and social atrocity, thus precluding any summary quashing of the proceedings.
In addressing the substantive merits of the case, the court ruled that the "public view" requirement under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was satisfied by the magnitude of the alleged tree-felling operation, which involved laborers and heavy equipment, making it an open-air activity visible to the public.
The court also dismissed the argument that the case was a civil dispute dressed up as a criminal prosecution. Justice Kumar noted that the existence of a civil profile does not preclude criminal prosecution if the ingredients of theft and trespass are disclosed, and emphasized that the truth of the defence and the veracity of the grievances must be tested at trial.
Furthermore, the court considered the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of independent public witnesses, concluding that these factors should be evaluated during the trial as a matter of evidence. The court underscored the need for trials to address the social power imbalances faced by marginalized communities, such as the Santhal Scheduled Tribe, in navigating the legal system.
In conclusion, the court directed that the trial in Special (A) Case No. 02 of 2021 proceed with utmost expedition, providing the complainant an opportunity to file a confirmatory affidavit to validate the original petition, while allowing the petitioners to raise their defences during the trial. Justice Kumar reiterated that the observations made in the judgment are confined to the determination of the revisional application and should not influence the merits of the case during trial.
Bottom Line:
Criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) involving allegations of theft, trespass, and caste-based atrocities under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot be quashed where the Charge Sheet discloses prima facie evidence of cognizable offences and social atrocity. Procedural lapses at the inception stage, such as the absence of an affidavit under Section 156(3) CrPC, are curable irregularities when substantiated by investigative findings.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), Section 156(3) CrPC, Section 465 CrPC, Sections 379, 447, 506, and 34 IPC, Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Idel SK @ Gaba SK v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc id # 2878700
