(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Spl.SC.No.26 of 2026 pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Salem.)

1. This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the proceeding in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2026 pending on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Salem, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(p) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”) as against the petitioners.

2. The third respondent lodged a complaint alleging that he belongs to the Adi Dravidar community and that his father had inherited Adi Dravidar conditional assignment land measuring an extent of 17 acres and 18 cents, comprised in Survey Nos.490/3B and 490/4, situated at Thevoor Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District. Thereafter, his father settled the said property in favour of his mother by way of a registered Settlement Deed, vide Document No.3066 of 2024. Subsequently, his mother conveyed the said property in favour of one Reegan by way of a registered Sale Deed, vide Document No.511 of 2025, after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar, Sankagiri. It is further alleged that, despite having knowledge that the subject property was Adi Dravidar conditional assignment land, the accused persons illegally trespassed into the property and took possession thereof. They also commenced cultivation over the said land.

3. It is the further alleged that the accused persons, with the assistance of certain villagers, attempted to dispossess the third respondent and his father from the subject property. In connection with the said property, the accused persons also instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.1037 of 2024, which is stated to be pending adjudication. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.73 of 2026. Upon completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed the final report, and the same was taken cognizance of by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the subject property was originally purchased by the grandfather of the third respondent from one Puttan alias Kuruvan Sakkili under a Sale Deed dated 18.04.1945, registered as Document No.902 of 1945. Thereafter, the said property was sold by him under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.03.1946, registered as Document No.907 of 1946, for valid sale consideration in favour of the grandfather of the wife of the first petitioner. It is further submitted that, in both the aforesaid Sale Deeds, there was no recital or indication that the subject property was an Adi Dravidar conditional assignment land. Thereafter, under a Sale Deed dated 12.06.1948, registered as Document No.63 of 1948, the property was once again conveyed in favour of the grandfather of the third respondent. Subsequently, on 11.09.1948, the grandfather of the third respondent executed another Sale Deed, registered as Document No.1896 of 1948, in favour of the father of the wife of the first petitioner. It is submitted that, from the date of the said purchase, the accused persons have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

                     4.1. Though the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent vehemently contended that a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the father of the third respondent in the year 1948, the said transaction is not reflected in the revenue records or supported by the actual possession of the property. It is further submitted that the subject property was also mortgaged under a Mortgage Deed dated 11.09.1948, which continues to subsist and has never been redeemed or discharged. Therefore, the existence of an undischarged registered mortgage, coupled with the uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the subject property by the accused persons and their predecessors-in-interest, clearly belies the allegation of any recent trespass or illegal occupation of the property. Therefore, there is no question of the petitioners having trespassed into or illegally occupied the subject property.

                     4.2. Even according to the third respondent, his father had executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his mother, who thereafter executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Reegan, registered as Document No.511 of 2025. Thus, the third respondent himself has no subsisting title or interest over the subject property. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are essentially civil in nature and that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners. Hence, he prayed for allowing the present petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the subject property was originally purchased by the grandfather of the third respondent in the year 1945 from one Kuruvan, who also belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, any subsequent transfer of the subject property in favour of a person belonging to a community other than the Scheduled Caste community would be void and in violation of the conditions stipulated in the D-Form Patta, as prescribed under the Revenue Board Standing Orders. It is further submitted that, pursuant thereto, the subject property was once again transferred in favour of the grandfather of the defacto complainant under registered Document No.1896 of 1948 dated 11.09.1948.

                     5.1. Thereafter, on 13.07.1954, the Public Works Department acquired an extent of 93 cents from the grandfather of the third respondent and passed an award for a sum of Rs.906.50/-. In respect of the remaining extent, patta was issued in favour of the father of the third respondent, who had also been paying the property tax in respect of the said property. It is therefore submitted that, despite the subsisting rights of the third respondent and his predecessors-in-interest over the subject property, the accused persons illegally trespassed into and occupied the same. Hence, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act are clearly attracted against the accused persons. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed available on record.

7. On perusal of the records placed before this Court, it is revealed that the allegations and materials available on record do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(1)(p) of the SC/ST Act. The dispute between the parties essentially relates to the title, possession and competing civil claims over the subject property. Mere existence of such a dispute, without the necessary statutory ingredients, cannot by itself, be converted into an offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. It is also evident from the documents relied upon by the parties that the accused persons and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for nearly eight decades. The subsequent execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the third respondent's mother and the further conveyance of the property in favour of Reegan, by themselves, do not establish any change in the factual possession of the property or the alleged act of trespass by the petitioners.

8. It is further significant that the civil suit in O.S.No.1037 of 2024 had already been instituted in respect of the subject property, and the complaint giving rise to the present criminal proceedings was lodged thereafter. The timing of the complaint, coupled with the nature of the dispute and the longstanding possession claimed by the petitioners and their predecessors, indicates that the criminal proceedings appear to have been initiated primarily to exert pressure upon the petitioners in respect of a dispute which is essentially civil in nature. Therefore, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue in the absence of the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act would amount to permitting the criminal process to be used as a means of exerting pressure in a pending civil dispute. The continuation of such proceedings, therefore, would not serve the ends of justice.

9. It is also seen from the materials on record that the accused persons and the defacto complainant are adjacent landowners and that the accused persons have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. In such circumstances, the essential element of wrongful dispossession of a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, which is necessary to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act, is prima facie absent. In order to attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act, the materials must disclose that the land belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe was wrongfully occupied or cultivated by a person who does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The expression “wrongfully” occurring in the provision has to be understood in the context of the statutory explanation, namely, that such occupation or cultivation was against the will of, or without the consent of, the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or that there was fabrication of records relating to such land.

10. In the present case, the materials collected during investigation do not disclose any such foundational facts. There is no material to establish that the petitioners had wrongfully dispossessed the third respondent from the subject property, interfered with his possession, or occupied or cultivated the land against his will or without his consent in the manner contemplated under the statutory provisions. Equally, there is no material indicating any fabrication of records relating to the subject property so as to attract the said provisions. Therefore, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act are not made out against the petitioners. In the absence of the foundational ingredients constituting the alleged offences, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed.

11. In view of the above discussions, the impugned proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.26 of 2026 pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Salem, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.