Priti Agarwalla vs The State Of Gnct Of Delhi

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The appellants, who were trainee athletes at the Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy (OREA), New Delhi, challenged a complaint filed against them by Respondent No. 2 (a fellow trainee athlete) under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, before SHO P.S. Fatehpur Beri on 29.04.2018. The complaint arose in the backdrop of a series of cross-complaints and counter-cases filed between the parties and the administrator of OREA between April and May 2018, including allegations of sexual harassment, cruelty to animals, cheating, and threats to life. Respondent No. 2 also filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate, South Saket Court, Delhi, seeking registration of an FIR against the appellants.

The Supreme Court examined the factual matrix involving multiple complaints, FIRs and proceedings pending before various courts and authorities, including Special Courts under the SC/ST Act and the Delhi High Court. The judgment authored by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti traced the chronology of events from 03.04.2018 to 09.05.2018, noting that the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 under the Act of 1989 appeared to be one of several retaliatory actions taken by the contesting parties against each other in the context of disputes arising at the equestrian training facility.

The case raises important questions regarding the application of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the context of disputes between private parties at a sports training institution, and the exercise of the power of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to direct investigation. The judgment was declared non-reportable.

Catchwords: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 · equestrian sport · training academy · complaint under SC/ST Act · Section 156(3) CrPC · cross-complaints · anticipatory bail · WhatsApp group conspiracy · Metropolitan Magistrate · non-reportable judgment