Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court has upheld a trial court’s order directing a complainant in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to pay Rs 2,000 in compensation to the accused for filing a false case. The court observed that the complainant had acted out of vengeance with the support of other officials.As per case details, a forest beat guard in the Vijaynagar forest range in Sabarkantha district had filed a complaint against deputy conservator of forests, also known as DFO, Ramesh Mistry in 2007. The guard alleged that the officer had assaulted him in his chamber and hurled casteist slurs in the presence of other forest officials. The incident allegedly occurred when the beat guard approached Mistry to regularise his 118 days of leave.Mistry refuted the allegations, contending that the beat guard, a union leader, had lodged a false case under the atrocities Act to pressurise him into approving his unauthorised leave.In 2010, a district court in Himmatnagar, Sabarkantha acquitted Mistry, rejecting the charges. It also dismissed the testimonies of the forest officials who supported the complainant, noting that they held grudges against Mistry because he had issued memos to them for dereliction of duty.Along with the acquittal, the trial court invoked Section 250(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and ordered the beat guard to pay Rs 2,000 in compensation to Mistry, citing the lack of reasonable grounds for the allegations.The state govt challenged Mistry’s acquittal, while the complainant moved the high court against the compensation order.After hearing the matter, Justice Umesh Trivedi upheld both the acquittal and the compensation directive.The court observed: “When several reasons are assigned showing that, out of vengeance, with the help of other office witnesses, the first informant, who is the union leader, has created a false case against the accused, as concluded by the learned judge, ordering compensation of Rs 2,000 only to be paid to the accused, which is already deposited by him, cannot be said to be unjust. Therefore, the revision application preferred by the first informant is also hereby rejected.“
