‘False SC-ST cases rising’: Court sends woman to 3 years in jail for filing fabricated complaint

A special SC/ST court in Lucknow Thursday convicted a woman for filing a false police complaint in August 2019 that led to an FIR and sentenced her to three years and six months in jail. The ruling aims to prevent misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court said compensation under the Act cannot be given only after an FIR is registered. It held that relief would now be considered only when a chargesheet is filed and a prima facie case is established, a TOI report stated.

Judge’s observation on misuse

Special judge (SC/ST Act) Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi said, “The practice of lodging false SC/ST cases to obtain government compensation is increasing and must be checked immediately.”
The 30-page order said filing an FIR alone does not amount to a prima facie case and the law was not meant to provide benefits to those misusing it by filing fabricated complaints.

Sentencing under IPC sections

The woman has been sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (giving false information to a public servant) and three years under Section 211 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure).

SC earlier ruling on scope of SC/ST Act

In July, the Supreme Court held that belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe alone is not enough to bring a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court said the offence must be committed on the basis of caste identity for the Act to apply.

Bench clarifies requirement of caste intent

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta delivered the order on July 22 while hearing a petition linked to a domestic dispute. In the case, the complainant had invoked the SC/ST Act along with Indian Penal Code sections. The appellant argued there was no caste-related allegation in the matter.The Supreme Court set aside an earlier order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and said the law could not be applied only because the complainant belonged to a protected community. It said an insult or intimidation must happen “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” and in a place visible to the public.

Court cites earlier judgment on misuse concerns

The bench noted that the case came from a matrimonial dispute and the complaint did not claim that the abuse was driven by caste. The Court referred to its 2020 ruling in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, where it said private disputes such as property or domestic matters do not fall under the Act unless there is caste-based intent.

The Court observed that applying the Act in cases without caste-based motivation would misuse the law and weaken its purpose. It quashed the proceedings under the SC/ST Act but allowed IPC charges in the case to continue before the trial court.

Judiciary stresses careful application

The judgment underlined that the law protects marginalised communities but must be applied only when its core elements are present. The Court said it would not allow the statute to be used where the record does not support a direct link to caste-based harm.