In a significant decision, the Telangana High Court has quashed a decade-old First Information Report (FIR) filed against two Civil Judges accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J Sreenivas Rao, determined that the FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure and constituted an abuse of the legal process.
The case stemmed from allegations against the two judicial officers, who were accused of engaging in a dispute with colleagues during their training at the Judicial Academy in Bengaluru and allegedly using caste-based slurs. However, the Court noted that the complaint appeared to be a “counter blast” filed in response to earlier complaints lodged by the accused judges.
“It is pertinent to mention that respondent No.5 has lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 09.10.2015, subsequent to the report submitted by the Director, Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy, Secunderabad, to the Registrar (Vigilance) basing upon the information/complaint of the petitioners and after conducting enquiry against respondent No.5 and Mr. S. Kalyan Chakravarthy. It clearly shows that respondent No.5 lodged a complaint against the petitioners maliciously as a counter blast and the same is clear abuse of process of law,” the Court observed.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, appointed as Junior Civil Judges in 2013, reported incidents at their hostel to the Director of the Judicial Academy. The report was forwarded to the High Court, resulting in disciplinary proceedings against the accused colleagues. In 2015, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad imposed the highest penalty, removing the respondent and others from service.
Subsequently, the respondent filed a complaint alleging caste-based abuse, leading to the registration of the FIR under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The petitioners argued that the FIR, lodged two years after the alleged incident, was a retaliatory move following their prior complaints.
Court’s Conclusion
The High Court underscored that the FIR was registered only after the respondent’s removal from service, suggesting a malicious intent. “The same is a clear abuse of process of law and the principle laid down in State of Haryana (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case,” the Bench held.
Observing the delay in lodging the FIR and the retaliatory nature of the complaint, the Court quashed the FIR, terming it an “abuse of process of law.”
Case: Asifa Sultana & Anr vs State & Ors – Available on LAWFYI.IO
