Supreme Court has issued a reminder to police officers to exercise caution before invoking the provisions of stringent laws like the SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court emphasized that the officers must be satisfied that the provisions they seek to apply prima facie apply to the case at hand. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah clarified that their observations are not intended to dilute the applicability of special or stringent statutes but rather to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law without considering the factual position.
The Court made these remarks while hearing a case where an FIR was registered against the accused invoking provisions of the SC-ST Act based on a complaint made against him. The accused had approached the Apex Court after the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the FIR. Upon perusing the complaint and FIR, the bench noted that even if the allegations are taken to be true on their face value, it is not discernible that any offence can be said to have been made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. The complaint and FIR were found to be frivolous, vexatious, and oppressive by the Court.
Gulam Mustafa, a Managing Director of a construction company, had filed an appeal challenging the FIR registered against him based on a complaint filed by Venkatesh. Mustafa argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, as it arose after the company entered into a joint development agreement related to a property. The complaint was allegedly filed to take advantage of the similarity between the old survey number of Mustafa's land and the new survey number of the land in question.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, observed that malafide appears to be writ large in this matter. The Court noted that civil litigations were already pending on the issue and questioned why the complainant and her family members, if the land was truly theirs, would sit on the fence for a prolonged period before raising the dispute. The bench further noted that the complaint was filed only after the land was developed and apartments were sold to other allottees, indicating a lack of bonafide on the complainant's part.
TAGS: Gulam Mustafa construction company appeal FIR Venkatesh civil nature joint development agreement complaint old survey number new survey number Supreme Court malafide civil litigations dispute bonafide land development allottees.
