Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementSC & ST Act, 1989

Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2026

The Court emphasized the importance of locus standi in criminal complaints under special statutes like the SC/ST Act.

Bombay High Court·29 April 2026
Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2026
SC & ST Act, 1989
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Bombay High Court

Date of Decision

29 April 2026

Judges

Justice Y. G. Khobragade

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The complaint was filed by Respondent No. 2, claiming to be the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of one Fakiri Kisan Gangave.

  • The alleged victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community.

  • The complaint alleged illegal transfer and encroachment of land belonging to the victim by the accused.

  • The accused (appellants) challenged the complaint, arguing that the complainant:

    • Did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe, and

    • Had no locus standi to file the complaint.

  • It was also contended that the victim herself had not filed any complaint or initiated proceedings.

  • The Special Court had issued process under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act.

  • The accused filed a criminal appeal before the High Court challenging this order.

Issues

  1. Whether a Power of Attorney holder has the locus standi to file a complaint under the SC/ST Act on behalf of the victim?

  2. Whether a complaint under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act can be sustained when the victim herself has not initiated proceedings?

  3. Whether a Power of Attorney that does not expressly authorize criminal proceedings permits the holder to initiate such proceedings?

  4. Whether the essential ingredients of offences under the SC/ST Act were made out in the present case?

  5. Whether the trial court erred in issuing process without proper consideration of legal requirements?

Held

  • A Power of Attorney holder does not have locus standi to file a complaint under the SC/ST Act on behalf of the victim without specific authorization.

  • A complaint under the SC/ST Act must ordinarily be initiated by the affected person.

  • Absence of express authority to initiate criminal proceedings renders such complaint not maintainable.

  • The proceedings initiated in the present case were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Analysis

  • The Court emphasized the importance of locus standi in criminal complaints under special statutes like the SC/ST Act.

  • It drew a distinction between general criminal law principles (where anyone may inform authorities) and specific statutory protections requiring victim involvement.

  • The judgment reinforces that special legislations like the SC/ST Act must be strictly construed, particularly regarding procedural safeguards.

  • The Court highlighted the necessity of explicit authorization in Power of Attorney documents, especially for initiating criminal proceedings.

  • It prevents misuse or proxy litigation under sensitive laws designed to protect vulnerable communities.

  • The ruling strengthens judicial scrutiny at the stage of issuance of process, discouraging mechanical orders by trial courts.

  • It contributes to jurisprudence on maintainability and procedural validity in atrocity law cases.