Filing False Civil Suit Based On Forged Document Against SC/ST Person Can Prima Facie Attract SC/ST Act Offence: Kerala High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen allowed a complainant’s appeal in part, holding that an offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act may be prima facie attracted where a non-member is shown, at the threshold, to have instituted a false civil suit against members of the Scheduled Caste community by relying on a forged suit document. While declining to direct court monitoring of the investigation, the Bench set aside the order to the extent it treated the SC/ST offences as deletable and directed the investigating officer to obtain the promissory note from court custody, secure forensic comparison, and file a final report before the Special Court with the expert opinion.
The appellant, the complainant in a private complaint, alleged that the accused had instituted O.S. before the Munsiff Court on the basis of a promissory note purportedly executed by him and his father. Upon filing a written statement disputing the genuineness of the document and contending that the promissory note was forged, the plaintiffs withdrew the suit. Subsequently, Crime No.974 of 2024 was registered alleging offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
During investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a report seeking deletion of offences under Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the Act on the ground that the accused company had no knowledge of the caste identity of the complainant. The Special Court, considering the report, found no impediment in transferring the case records to the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court and dismissed the application seeking court-monitored investigation. The complainant challenged this order contending that the suit was false and vexatious and that seizure and forensic examination of the promissory note were necessary.
The Court recorded that, “when it is prima facie established that the suit filed…is one in the category of false, malicious or vexatious one, particularly using a forged suit document, when the defendants therein are members of the Scheduled Caste and the plaintiffs therein are not members of Scheduled Caste, the offence unader Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act would attract prima facie.”
The High Court examined the statutory provisions and stated, “Going through the statutory wordings institution of a false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, by a person who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community is the ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(p) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.” It also recorded, “Similarly, giving a false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causing a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by a person who does not belong to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community are the essentials to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.”
On the question of knowledge of caste identity, the Court observed, “On reading of Section 8(c) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act introduced with effect from 26.01.2016, it has been provided that the accused was having personal knowledge on the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.” It further stated, “This presumption is a statutory presumption under Section 8 of the SC & ST (PoA) Act.”
Regarding the nature of the transaction, the Court observed, “When a kuri company engaged in chitty business, after making acquaintance with subscribers, dealt with subscribers for its kuri transactions and thereafter institutes suits for realisation of the amount due under the kuri transactions, based on an alleged forged promissory note, the kuri company could not be held as a person who did not know the caste identity of the defendants in the suit, especially when knowledge regarding the caste identity of the accused is a matter of presumption, unless the contrary is proved by evidence.”
On the acceptance of the police report, the Court stated, “Therefore, the deemed acceptance of Annexure A6 report filed by the investigating officer by the Special Court would not sustain in the eye of law.” The Court also recorded, “The apprehension expressed by the appellant as regards the failure of the investigating officer in the matter of seizure of the promissory note for the purpose of getting its signatures compared… is having force and in such view of the matter an investigation in the above line is absolutely necessary in this case to accomplish successful prosecution.”
The Court directed, “The impugned order is set aside in part, while confirming the view taken by the learned Special Judge that the Court need not monitor the investigation.”
“Consequently, it is ordered that the investigating officer shall investigate the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, after getting the promissory note from the custody of the Court, by filing necessary application as per law for comparison of the signatures of the defacto complainant and his father to find it's nature as forged or genuine and on getting opinion of an Expert from a Forensic Science Laboratory, then the investigating officer shall file the final report before the Special Court along with the Expert report in accordance with the law.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Manumon A., Shri Rebin Vincent Gralan, Shri Manoj Krishnan K., Shri Suresh C., Smt. Edathara Vineeta Krishnan, Smt. Rosna M. Joy, Smt. Gayathri E.S., Shri Avin Krishna M.P., Smt. Athira Suresh, Shri John Christo T.P., Shri Akshay Kumar C.S., Smt. Liniya Loveson, Smt. Anjali N.S.
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Shri Jayakrishnan U.; Shri Jithin Babu A., Shri Arun Samuel, Shri Anood Jalal K.J., Smt. Dona Mathew.
Case Title: Velayudhan v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:9158
Case Number: CRL.A No. 2214 of 2025
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen
