Lucknow- A special court for SC/ST cases in Lucknow has expressed deep concern over the increasing number of false cases filed under the SC/ST Act and rape charges, issuing specific directives to the Lucknow Police. This decision came in the case of advocate Parmanand Gupta, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for orchestrating fabricated gangrape and SC/ST atrocity cases to settle a property dispute involving his wife.

The court’s ruling, delivered on August 19, 2025, by Special Judge Vivekanand Sharan Tripathi, aims to curb the misuse of protective laws and includes innovative measures to protect the judicial system.

The court highlighted its grave concern over the surge in fake cases under the SC/ST Act and rape laws. It noted that such fabricated complaints not only cause severe harm to innocent accused individuals but also erode trust and sow suspicion within society.

The judgment emphasized: "The SC/ST Act was enacted to protect marginalized communities from caste-based atrocities and to punish offenders, fostering social harmony and upholding the dignity, fraternity, and unity of the nation as enshrined in the Constitution. However, when criminals like Parmanand Gupta misuse this law, it breeds resentment among non-SC/ST communities, who feel targeted by baseless cases. Over time, this misuse undermines the constitutional values of dignity and unity. Thus, this court believes there is no need for leniency toward such offenders. If the drops of sourness are not stopped from falling into an ocean of milk, they will eventually spoil the entire sea. Similarly, if advocates like Parmanand Gupta are not barred from practicing law by this court, the High Court, the Supreme Court, and the Bar Councils, public faith in the Indian judiciary will suffer a severe blow."

The court warned that false cases waste judicial time and delay justice for genuine victims, creating a dangerous precedent for the legal system.

Strict Instructions to Police: Mandatory Record of Past Complaints

The court directed the Lucknow Police Commissioner to ensure that in cases of rape, gangrape (Sections 376/376D IPC), or SC/ST Act offenses, the FIR must include a mandatory note on the complainant’s history. This note should detail how many times the complainant or their family members have previously filed similar FIRs against opponents or others, as well as any petitions submitted via the IGRS portal or police stations.

The court instructed that this information be recorded as a comment in the FIR itself. For cases under Section 173(4) BNSS, where complainants approach the court to register an FIR, the police must provide details of prior cases when requested by the court.

The court also recommended the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to streamline this process and identify patterns of false complaints, aiming to protect innocents and deter misuse.

Curbing Compensation Misuse: Recovery of Relief Funds

The court ordered the District Magistrate, Lucknow, to immediately recover any relief amount provided to Pooja Rawat under Crime No. 40/2025, registered under Sections 64, 74, 115(2), 316(2), 324(4), 333, 351(3), 352 BNSS, 66D IT Act, and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act. The judgment clarified that relief under the SC/ST Rules 1995, ranging from 10% to 25% at the FIR stage and 50% upon filing a chargesheet, should now be disbursed only after the chargesheet is submitted, not merely upon FIR registration.

The court stated: "The legislature never intended for taxpayers’ hard-earned money to be given as relief or compensation to mischievous elements filing false FIRs. The staggered relief provisions in Schedule Annexure-1 were designed to prevent SC/ST victims from being targeted again by offenders after receiving lump-sum payments. Therefore, exercising powers under Section 15A(7) of the SC/ST Act, the District Magistrate is directed to ensure that the full relief amount is provided only after the chargesheet, not at the FIR stage. Providing cash relief at the FIR stage has fueled the trend of filing fake cases, exploiting the SC/ST Act. Before the chargesheet, assistance should be limited to medical, food, or other in-kind support under Section 15A(11), such as water, clothing, shelter, medical aid, transport, maintenance, and security. Restricting cash relief at the FIR stage will curb the misuse of law, prevent innocents from being framed, and reduce the backlog of SC/ST cases."

For cases where an FIR leads to a final report (FR) due to no prima facie case, no compensation should be given until the court summons the accused for trial after hearing the complainant. If the final report is accepted, no relief should be provided based solely on the FIR, ensuring the Act is implemented in its true spirit.

Parmanand Gupta’s Misdeeds: A Stain on Judiciary

Parmanand Gupta orchestrated over 30 fake cases, including 11 FIRs and 18 court cases, using Pooja Rawat as a tool. Pooja, a Dalit woman working at Gupta’s wife’s beauty parlour, was coerced into filing false complaints, including a gangrape allegation against the Yadav brothers in a property dispute.

The CBI investigation, ordered by the Allahabad High Court, confirmed the allegations were baseless, with mobile tracking and witness testimonies proving Pooja’s absence from the alleged crime scenes. Gupta’s history of filing 18 personal false cases and misleading the High Court further aggravated his offense. The court described him as a "disgrace to the legal profession" and directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to bar him from practicing law.

While acquitting Pooja Rawat due to her cooperation, the court warned her against future misuse of the SC/ST Act, threatening strict action if she collaborates with Gupta or others to file fake cases. She was ordered to furnish a bail bond of Rs 20,000 and a personal surety of the same amount within seven days of release from jail, complying with Section 437A CrPC, in case of an appeal.