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

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.

The Court held that the complainant filed the complaint in his capacity as a GPA holder and not as the victim.

It observed that the victim had neither filed the complaint nor authorized such action in her name.

The Court examined the Power of Attorney document and found that it did not authorize initiation of criminal proceedings.

It clarified that mere status as a Power of Attorney holder does not confer the right to file criminal complaints.

The Court acknowledged that generally, any person can set criminal law in motion under Section 154 CrPC, but distinguished the present case on facts.

It noted that the complainant was asserting offences under the SC/ST Act on behalf of the victim, who had not come forward.

The Court found this circumstance raised serious doubts regarding maintainability.

Upon examining the material on record, the Court concluded that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not established.

It held that the trial court issued process mechanically without proper legal scrutiny.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the complaint.

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.