“Law Should Not Result In Caste Hatred”- Allahabad HC Imposes ₹5 Lakh Cost On University Teacher For False Case Under SC/ST Act
The Allahabad High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Assistant Professor in Department of Economics in the University of Allahabad for filing false cases under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 i.e., SC/ST Act against her colleagues.
The Court said that the law should not result in caste hatred. It was dealing with an application relating to a case in which a Professor had to pay a very heavy price for asking an Assistant Professor to take classes and teach properly.
A Single Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar observed, “The S.C./S.T. Act has been enacted with the objective that the underprivileged need to be protected against any atrocities to give effect to the constitutional ideals. At the same time, the said Act cannot be converted into a charter for exploitation or oppression by any unscrupulous person or by police for extraneous reasons against other citizens as has been found on several occasions. Any harassment of an innocent citizen, irrespective of caste or religion, is against the guarantee of the Constitution. This Court must enforce such a guarantee. Law should not result in caste hatred. The Preamble to the Constitution, which is the guiding star for interpretation, incorporates the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. This Court is not expected to adopt a passive or negative role and remain bystander or a spectator if violation of rights is observed.”
The Court added by saying that it is necessary to fashion new tools and strategies so as to check injustice and violation of fundamental rights and that no procedural technicality can stand in the way of enforcement of fundamental right.
Senior Advocates G.S. Chaturvedi and Vinay Sharan appeared for the applicant while AGAs S.D. Pandey and S.K. Chandraul appeared for the opposite parties.
Brief Facts -
The applicant was made an accused and had to face trial for at least eight years, and further had to face humiliation, stigma, for no fault of his own, and on the other hand, the complainant, by misusing the SC/ST Act, had virtually threatened the other seniors from taking any action against her. An application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was preferred by the applicant praying for quashing charge sheet including the entire proceeding under Section 354C, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
The complainant was appointed as Assistant Professor in the University of Allahabad and she joined in July, 2013. The Head of Department (HOD) found working of the complainant unsatisfactory during her probation period and gave negative entry to her along with certain other Assistant Professors. Thereafter, the HOD changed, who also during the course of time evaluated the complainant and gave a negative report about her working.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “Even if the allegations made in the FIR are taken to be true and accepted in its entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence against the applicant. Further, a bare perusal of the allegations levelled against the applicant in the FIR as well as the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. do not disclose commission of offence as suggested by the prosecution and no case is made out against the applicant. The entire criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafides and the same has been carried out just to wreak vengeance against the Head of Department, who had asked her to carry out her duties diligently.”
The Court further said that the entire proceedings initiated by the complainant was with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite the applicant for the personal grudge, which she had against him.
“If such kind of activities are not nipped in the bud, it will set a precedent where other members of the S.C. or the S.T. community will open start insubordination and the Head of Department will not be in a position to do anything, and if warning is given them; cases under the S.C./S.T. Act will be foisted against them”, it also said.
The Court added that such case is a classic case where a subordinate Professor, whenever had been asked to teach properly and to go well prepared in the classes, she would go and file complaint against the HOD and the entire complaint filed by her is nothing but a pure abuse of process of law and misuse of the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
“The menace of filing false and frivolous cases under the S.C./S.T. Act is writ large. Various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken very strict view of the same. This menace has been well considered by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. … The Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts had time and again dealt with problems where the litigant/complainant having filed false, frivolous and vexatious litigation to wreak vengeance and those have come out heavily to curb the serious problem”, it noted.
The Court added that the complainant, who is a well-educated lady, knows the provisions of law very well and she had been abusing the provisions of law for personal gain and hence, the complaint filed by her was nothing but a pure abuse of process of law.
“Because of the filing of frivolous cases, the reputation and public image of the applicant and his colleagues, who are Professors and people with high morals and reputation, had been tarnished. They had to run from pillar to post, from Police Station to Court to save themselves. Evidently, this was false and frivolous case filed against the applicant only to wreak personal vengeance. Such kind of vexatious proceedings should not be allowed to continue and if anybody engages in doing so, such activities have to curbed down. This is a perfect case where exemplary cost should be imposed on the complainant/O.P. no.2. The loss of reputation, public image and the financial loss caused to the applicant are far much more, but as a token a cost of Rs.5 lacs is imposed on O.P. no.2 for abusing the process of law by filing frivolous cases only for personal vengeance and personal gains. This amount should begiven to the applicant forthwith after making deduction from the salary of O.P. no.2 as well as other benefits given by her employer”, it directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the case against the applicant.
Cause Title- Manmohan Krishna v. State of UP and another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:31717)
Appearance:
Applicant: Senior Advocates Vinay Sharan, G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocates Katyayini, and P.K. Mishra.
Opposite Parties: AGAs S.D. Pandey, S.K. Chandraul, and Advocate Aishwarya Pratap Singh.
