Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026

A chitty company, through its Managing Director, filed a suit for recovery from a subscriber, using a promissory note.

The subscriber claimed the promissory note was forged and withdrew the suit.

The subscriber, a member of SC/ST, filed a complaint alleging offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act.

Investigating Officer (IO) filed a report to delete SC/ST offences, stating the accused was unaware of the complainant’s caste identity.

Special Court dismissed the complaint petition, accepting the IO report.

The complainant appealed to the High Court, challenging the dismissal and seeking investigation under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST Act.

The High Court held that prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(q) SC/ST Act is attracted if it is established that a false, malicious, or vexatious suit was filed using a forged document against a SC/ST member.

A kuri company dealing with subscribers is presumed to know the caste identity of the defendants.

Court interfered with the Special Court’s order accepting the IO report, directing further investigation.

Expert opinion to be obtained on the authenticity of the promissory note before filing the final report.

Court did not interfere with the Special Court’s finding that monitoring of investigation was unnecessary.

Reinforces that SC/ST Act protections extend to cases where fraudulent civil suits are filed.

Clarifies that entities like kuri companies dealing with subscribers cannot claim ignorance of caste.

Establishes the importance of expert verification in forgery cases under SC/ST Act.

Balances the need for proper investigation with limits on court monitoring.