Madras High Court
K.Murugan vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 22 June, 2022
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.No.2201 of 2022
1.K.Murugan
2.K.Krishnan
3.M.Bharath ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
D.S.P./CWC, Katpadi Taluk
Vellore District
2.The Inspector of Police
Thiruvalam Police Station
Vellore District
3.S.Vinayagam ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and to quash the proceedings in
Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021, pending on the file of the Special Court for trial
of Cases under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Vellore.
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan
Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2
No Appearance for R3
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records and to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 for the offence u/s.447, 427 I.P.C. r/w. Section 3(1)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, pending on the file of the Special Court for trial of Cases under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vellore.
2.The crux of the allegation found in the final report is that the petitioners / accused have trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and damaged the Neem trees using JCB Machine, thereby committed an offence u/s.447, 427 I.P.C.
Page No.2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that though the final report has been filed and the entire final report is a result of motive and malafide intention only to recover the possession which was in the enjoyment of the accused / the petitioners herein. It is submitted that originally the occurrence took place on 15.01.2020, but the complaint was registered only on 26.02.2020 in Crime No.103 of 2020 for the offence u/s. 447, 427 I.P.C. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint, it was sent to the Commission at Delhi. F.I.R. came to be altered after one year for the offence u/s.3(1)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. At any event, the entire materials collected by the prosecution is perused and the same do not constitute the offence. Therefore forcing the accused to face the ordeal of trial is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly sought for quashing of the same.
4.Heard Mr.V.Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police.
Page No.3 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022
5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when normally the final report is filed and materials collected by the prosecution, the Court cannot conduct roving enquiry as to the validity of the statement or evidence. However when the materials and the evidence collected by the prosecution do not constitute any offence thus there is no difficultly for the Court to exercise its power u/s.482 Cr.P.C.
6.In 1992 SUPP (1) SUPREME COURT CASES – 335 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set out the following guidelines for quashing the proceedings.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an Page No.4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the Page No.5 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
7.On a perusal of the allegations and materials collected, it makes it clear that the very charge against the present petitioners are that on 15.01.2020, they have trespassed into the property belonging to the defacto complainant and caused damage to the neem trees. Therefore, the accused were charged for the offence u/s.447, 427 I.P.C., u/s.3(1)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. It is relevant to note that the very materials that was collected by the prosecution, particularly, the report of the Tahsildhar and the statement of the Tahsildhar show that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are Page No.6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 adjacent land owners and some small portion of the defacto complainant's land was annexed long ago by the accused and they were in enjoyment of the same. Only after this complaint, the survey was conducted for the said property by the Revenue authorities and the land which was in possession of the petitioners / accused was handed over back to the defacto complainant. The materials that was collected by the prosecution itself indicate that the alleged trespass on 15.01.2020 is motivated only for the purpose of the case. The statement of the Tahsildhar and the report submitted by him, is available along with the final report, indicate that the possession of the disputed land was with the petitioners for many years, therefore, the alleged trespass and causing damage to the neem trees is false when the person was in bonafide enjoyment of the property as his own and there is no material to show that they have trespassed on 15.01.2020 and the complaint has been pressed into service only to recover the land. A person cannot be prosecuted for trespass or dispossessing other. Further, to attract offence u/s.3(1)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, it must be shown that there was a wrongful Page No.7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 dispossession of a member of the SC / ST from his land or premises or interference with the enjoyment of their rights.u/s.3(1)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The relevant portion of the Act reads as follows:
(f) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land, owned by, or in the possession of or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, or gets such land transferred.
(g) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights, including forest rights, over any land or premises or water or irrigation facilities or destroys the crops or takes away the produce therefrom.
Explanation: - For the purposes of clause (f) and this clause, the expression “wrongfully” includes -
(A) against the person's will;
(B) without the person's consent (C) with the person's consent, where such consent has been obtained by putting the Page No.8 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 person, or any other person in whom the person is interested in fear of death or of hurt; or (D) fabricating records of such land;
8.It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in the similar allegations, the defacto complainant had already filed a criminal case in similar nature under the unamended Act of SC / ST Act and which was culminated in Sessions Case and ended in acquittal in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Vellore vide judgment dated 04.12.2006 and the said acquittal was challenged in Crl.R.C.No.1516 of 2013 which was also ended in acquittal vide order of this Court dated 09.02.2022.
9.On a perusal of the aforesaid Section, it makes it clear that it is not a case of the prosecution that the members of the Scheduled Caste were in wrongfully dispossess since the petitioners and the defacto complainant are the adjacent land owners and there was some portion that was annexed long ago, the petitioners enjoyed the property. In that Page No.9 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 scenario, the trespass or the wrongful dispossession of the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe to be presumed to attract the offence u/s.3(1)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
10.Considering the above fact, this Court is of the view that the prosecution is nothing but motivated one to get over the civil dispute. Therefore continuation of the prosecution and forcing the petitioners to undergo ordeal of trial is only an abuse of process of law.
11.In the result, the Petition stands allowed and the Spl.S.C.No.15 of 2021 for the offence u/s.447, 427 I.P.C. r/w. Section 3(1)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989, pending on the file of the Special Court for trial of Cases under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vellore stands quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.06.2022 kas Page No.10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 To.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police D.S.P./CWC, Katpadi Taluk Vellore District
2.The Inspector of Police Thiruvalam Police Station Vellore District
3.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai 600 104.
Page No.11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kas Crl.O.P.No.4347 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.2201 of 2022 22.06.2022 Page No.12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis