The Delhi High Court quashed an FIR against Ranjit Kaur, Associate Professor at Lakshmibai College, under the SC/ST Act and IPC provisions. The Court held caste allegations were a “belated addition” to an administrative dispute, lacking specificity to constitute offences under the special law.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has set aside an FIR lodged against Ranjit Kaur, an Associate Professor at Lakshmibai College (University of Delhi), under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court found that the caste-related allegations appeared to be a “belated addition” to an administrative dispute and lacked the particularity required to constitute an offence under the special Act.
Background:
The dispute arose from an incident on August 16, 2021, during a departmental meeting at Lakshmibai College concerning National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) preparations. The petitioner, Ranjit Kaur (Associate Professor in-Charge), and respondent no. 2, Dr. Neelam (also an Associate Professor), clashed over signing the minutes of the meeting.
According to the petitioner, Dr. Neelam refused to sign the minutes immediately, resulting in a tussle over the attendance register. The complainant, however, alleged that the petitioner coerced her to sign without reading and then slapped her in front of colleagues.
Contentions of the parties:
The petitioner moved to quash FIR No. 0512/2021, asserting the complaint was “manifestly attended with mala fides” and motivated by vindictiveness. She pointed out that the initial handwritten complaints submitted by respondent no. 2 to the Principal and the police on the day of the incident did not mention any casteist remarks or humiliation tied to her Scheduled Caste status.
The complainant maintained that she suffered physical and mental humiliation. She explained that while her earliest complaints described the physical assault, she later expanded her allegations to include caste-based atrocities, claiming that the petitioner had a persistent “casteist attitude” and had previously made derogatory comments about “quota beneficiaries.”
Court’s Reasoning:
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna reviewed the sequence of complaints and observed that the first two handwritten complaints dated August 16, 2021 only referred to the physical altercation and the slap.
The Court noted,
“The caste element appears for the first time only in the Complaint dated 17.08.2021 to the Principal, as a belated addition to an already narrated version of events,”
The Court examined statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and found that only one witness, Dr. Poonam Rani, attributed specific casteist slurs to the petitioner, while the complainant described such remarks in “vague and general terms.”
Addressing the requirements of the SC/ST Act, the Court observed:
“For an offence to be made out under Section 3 of SC/ST Act, it is essential that the alleged act must have been committed with the intent to humiliate the victim, specifically on account of her caste identity… The nexus between the alleged act and the caste identity of the victim, must be clearly and unequivocally established from the very face of the Complaint.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Charge: “Abuse Inside Home Not Within Public View”
The Court concluded the dispute originated as an “administrative disagreement” and that the testimony of a lone witness unsupported by specific corroboration from the complainant was insufficient to sustain a charge under the special Act.
On the IPC counts, the Court observed that offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult) are non-cognizable. Under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., an FIR cannot be registered for such offences without a magistrate’s order. The Court also noted a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) had already been recorded for the Section 323 allegation on the day of the incident.
Decision: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the FIR could not be maintained. The petition was allowed and FIR No. 0512/2021 at P.S. Bharat Nagar, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed.
The Court clarified that the complainant is free to “avail the appropriate remedy in accordance with law” in respect of the allegations under the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Ranjit Kaur vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(CRL) 1622/2021 & CRL.M.A. 13581/2021.