Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rukhman w/o Manohar Agale, Sunita w/o Sunil Sohale, and Savita w/o Digambar Pathade, were original accused nos. 4 to 6 in Sessions Case No. 224/2010 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Paithan, District Aurangabad. They were charged with offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order dated 03/03/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paithan, framing charges against them. The primary ground for challenge was that the proceedings were initiated without obtaining the mandatory sanction required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The petitioners argued that the absence of sanction rendered the entire proceedings void ab initio. The respondent no. 2, Shivaji Bhanudas Mapari, was the original complainant. The State of Maharashtra was the first respondent. The court, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, noted that the provision of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act mandates prior sanction for prosecution. Since no such sanction was obtained, the proceedings against the petitioners were not maintainable. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the order framing charges, and discharged the petitioners from the case. The rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Charges - Section 482 CrPC - Sanction under SC/ST Act - The petitioners, accused of offences under the SC/ST Act, challenged the framing of charges on the ground that no sanction was obtained as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The court held that the absence of sanction vitiates the proceedings and quashed the charges against the petitioners. (Paras 1-6) B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sanction Requirement - Section 3(1)(x) - The court observed that the provision mandates prior sanction for prosecution. Since no sanction was obtained, the proceedings were void ab initio. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed for want of mandatory sanction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Order dated 03/03/2016 framing charges against petitioners quashed. Petitioners discharged from Sessions Case No. 224/2010. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- 1989 is mandatory
- Lack of sanction renders proceedings void ab initio
- High Court can quash charges under Section 482 CrPC for want of sanction
