New Delhi, April 10 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court has dismissed an FIR filed against an Associate Professor from Lakshmibai College concerning claims of assault and caste-related insults. The court remarked that the allegations of caste-based degradation were introduced as an “afterthought” and failed to meet the necessary criteria needed to activate the SC/ST Act provisions.

In a ruling favoring Ranjit Kaur, the single-judge Bench presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna annulled an FIR recorded in 2021 at the Bharat Nagar police station, which included charges under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC along with Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and all related proceedings.

The incident in question occurred on August 16, 2021, during a departmental meeting focused on NAAC-related tasks, where a dispute allegedly arose between the petitioner and the complainant, Dr. Neelam, both of whom are Associate Professors at the institution.

The complainant claimed she was slapped and humiliated in front of colleagues.

In its judgment, the Delhi High Court highlighted that the complainant’s initial handwritten complaints submitted on the same day to both the college principal and the police made no mention of caste-related remarks or degradation due to her Scheduled Caste status.

Justice Krishna noted, “The caste element first appears in the complaint dated 17.08.2021 to the Principal, as a delayed addition to an already established narrative of events.”

The court analyzed the statutory prerequisites under the SC/ST Act, stating that for an offense to be substantiated, there must be a distinct and specific assertion that the accused intentionally insulted or degraded the victim based on her caste affiliation.

“It is insufficient that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste and that she suffered mistreatment or a physical confrontation. The connection between the alleged act and the victim’s caste identity must be explicitly and unequivocally demonstrated from the complaint itself,” the order stated.

The court further noted that even in later complaints and statements, including one recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the claims of casteist remarks remained “vague and general” without any specific terminology.

The Delhi High Court also determined that only one witness, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had attributed specific casteist comments to the petitioner, which were not corroborated by other witnesses.

Justice Krishna stated, “A statement from a single witness identifying specific casteist remarks, which the complainant never specifically substantiated, cannot provide the foundation for a charge under the SC/ST Act.”

Regarding the IPC offenses, Justice Sharma noted that Sections 323 and 504 are non-cognizable, and an FIR could not be filed without prior Magistrate approval as mandated by Section 155(2) CrPC.

“Therefore, the FIR cannot stand based on these offenses either,” the ruling concluded.

In summary, the Delhi High Court ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings was legally untenable and granted the petition.

“In light of the aforementioned observations, the petition is granted and the FIR... along with all related proceedings, are hereby quashed,” the court ordered.