“It is mandatory for the Court to issue a reasonable notice of any Court proceedings, including any bail application filed by the accused, to the victim and the victim or the dependent of a victim has a right to be heard at any proceeding under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Attrocities), 1989.”
Jharkhand High Court said that it was apparent that the incidence took place on 11-01-2008 for which the case and counter case were lodged.
A person should behave with a sense of responsibility while communicating something to others and cannot justify the same through limited circulation.
The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is essentially meant for protecting the members of a SC and ST from atrocity or oppression, however, it cannot be allowed to be misused.
Allahabad High Court said that the cases relied upon by the accused are not applicable to the present case, as they are silent over the issue of maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after insertion of Section 14-A of SC/ST Act, 1989 and unless the said issue is decided consciously, any departure from the statutory provision would be a bad precedent.
It is shocking, rather a mind-blowing fact that many innocent persons are victims of false implication under the SC/ST Act
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Special Judge convicting the accused under Section 376 of
Allahabad high Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the
Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. in the present case took opportunity to point out a trend that in large number
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S Dixit J. quashes the criminal proceedings as the SC-ST act is not retrospective in nature. The petitioners
The Courts ought to be vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party.
Telangana High Court: P. Naveen Rao, J., discussed and reiterated the scope of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of S. Manikumar and Shaji P. Chaly, JJ., while deciding the Constitutional validity of the Kerala
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J., allowed a bail application and granted bail to the applicant who was accused of committing the
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.,quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant accused of using abusive language against the complainant
Madras High Court: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., allowed a criminal original petition filed by petitioner accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Bombay High Court: K.K. Sonawane, J., while reversing the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, allowed pre-arrest bail applications of appellants filed under
Gujarat High Court: The Bench of S.H. Vora, J. allowed an appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. partly allowed a petition as a prima facie case