Compounding in SC/ST Act Cases

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Rahul Gupta and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (2025) quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act after parties entered into a verified compromise, ruling that the offence was primarily private in nature and not committed on account of caste. 

What was the Background of Rahul Gupta and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another (2025) Case? 

• The criminal appeal was filed to quash proceedings in S.T. No.892 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.0126 of 2024. 
• The case was registered under Sections 147, 323, 500, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station Brahampuri, District Meerut. 
• A charge sheet was filed on 30.04.2024 and summoning order was passed on 19.07.2024 by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut. 
• The parties informed the Court that they had entered into a compromise and settled all disputes between them. 
• The Court directed the Special Judge SC/ST Act Meerut to verify the compromise, which was done vide order dated 4.12.2024. 
• The Court also directed inquiry into whether the opposite party no.2 (informant) had returned the compensation amount received from authorities. 
• The District Magistrate, Meerut submitted a report dated 4.12.2024 stating that the compensation amount had not been returned by the opposite party no.2. 
• The appellants' counsel submitted that the compromise was made without any coercion or undue influence and was result of free will and consent. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court found that the present case had the nature of a purely private dispute. 
• The Court observed that prima facie the alleged offence had not been committed on account of the caste of the victim. 
• The Court noted that except for the offence under SC/ST Act, only minor offences had been levelled against the accused. 
• The Court found that the compromise was the result of free will and consent of the informant without any undue influence. 
• The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ramawatar v. State of M.P. (2022), which held that where an offence under SC/ST Act is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of caste, or where continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process, the Court can exercise powers to quash proceedings. 
• The Court emphasized the principle from Ramawatar that if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened even if the offence goes unpunished, the fact that it is covered under a special statute would not prevent exercise of quashing powers. 
• The Court highlighted the need for vigilance to ensure complainants from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes enter compromises voluntarily without any duress, noting they belong to weaker sections and are more prone to coercion. 
• The Court referred to the Full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan and Others v. State of U.P and Another (2022), which held that matters under SC/ST Act may be compounded in criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act without need to take recourse under Section 482 CrPC. 
• The Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings including the summoning order dated 19.07.2024 and allowed the criminal appeal in terms of the compromise. 
• The Court directed the opposite party no.2 to return the compensation amount received from authorities within one week.

What is the ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989? 

About the SC/ST Act: 

• SC/ST Act 1989 is an Act of Parliament enacted to prohibit discrimination against SC & ST communities' members and prevent atrocities against them. 
• The Act was passed in Parliament of India on 11th September 1989 and notified on 30 January 1990. 
• The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. 
• The Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2015: 

• This Act was amended in the year 2015 for the purpose of making the act more stringent with the following provisions: 
  • Recognition was given to more instances of atrocities as crimes against SCs and STs. 
  • It added several new offences in Section 3 and renumbered the entire section since the recognized crime almost doubled. 
  • The Act added Chapter IVA Section 15A (the rights of victims and witnesses), and defined dereliction of duty by officials and accountability mechanisms more precisely. 
  • It provided for the establishment of exclusive special courts and special public prosecutors. 
  • In the context of public servants at all levels this Act defined the term willful negligence. 

SC/ST (Amendment) Act, 2018: 

• In the case of Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Parliament’s 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Salient features of this Amendment Act are as follows: 
  • It added Section 18A to the original Act. 
  • It delineates specific crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as atrocities and describes strategies and prescribes punishments to counter these acts. 
  • It identifies what acts constitute “atrocities” and all offences listed in the Act are cognizable. The police can arrest the offender without a warrant and start an investigation into the case without taking any orders from the court. 
  • The Act calls upon all the states to convert an existing sessions court in each district into a Special Court to try cases registered under it and provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutors/Special Public Prosecutors for conducting cases in special courts. 
  • It creates provisions for states to declare areas with high levels of caste violence to be “atrocity-prone” and to appoint qualified officers to monitor and maintain law and order. 
  • It provides for the punishment for willful neglect of duties by non-SC/ST public servants. 
  • It is implemented by the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, which are provided due central assistance.