Ernakulam- In a significant verdict delivered on February 3, the Kerala High Court has held that instituting a false, malicious or vexatious civil suit using a forged promissory note against a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) community constitutes a prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018.

Justice A. Badharudeen, while partly allowing Criminal Appeal No. 2214 of 2025 filed by 68-year-old Dalit man Velayudhan, set aside a portion of the order passed by the Special Court for SC/ST Atrocities Cases, Thrissur.

The case arose from a case registered at Irinjalakuda Police Station. The complainant alleged that Highway Kuries Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director had filed O.S. No. 795/2023 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda, relying on a forged promissory note purportedly executed by him and his father. After the defendants filed a written statement denying the document and claiming it was fabricated, the plaintiffs withdrew the suit. FIR was registered under Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 3(1)(p) & 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

During investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted a report (dated 22.10.2024) stating that the kuri company had no knowledge of the complainant’s caste identity and recommended deletion of the SC/ST Act offences. The Special Court accepted this view and dismissed the complainant’s application for court-monitored investigation.

The High Court disagreed with the “deemed acceptance” of the police report and made the following key observations:

a. “when it is prima facie established that the suit filed…is one in the category of false, malicious or vexatious one, particularly using a forged suit document, when the defendants therein are members of the Scheduled Caste and the plaintiffs therein are not members of Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act would attract prima facie.”

b. Invoking the statutory presumption under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act (effective from 26.01.2016), the Court held: “When a kuri company engaged in chitty business, after making acquaintance with subscribers, dealt with subscribers for its kuri transactions and thereafter institutes suits for realisation of the amount due under the kuri transactions, based on an alleged forged promissory note, the kuri company could not be held as a person who did not know the caste identity of the defendants in the suit, especially when knowledge regarding the caste identity of the accused is a matter of presumption, unless the contrary is proved by evidence.”

The Court clarified that the presumption of knowledge of caste identity under Section 8(c) is rebuttable only at the stage of trial with evidence.

While rejecting the prayer for court-monitored investigation, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and directed:

1. The investigating officer shall obtain the promissory note from the custody of the Munsiff Court.

2. Get the signatures compared by a Forensic Science Laboratory expert.

3. File the final report before the Special Court along with the expert opinion.

This ruling strengthens the application of the SC/ST (PoA) Act in cases where civil suits based on allegedly forged documents are used to harass Scheduled Caste members, and reinforces the statutory presumption regarding knowledge of caste identity in business relationships.