Madras High Court
Tamil Selvi vs Kumaravel on 8 February, 2021
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.No.661 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :08.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.661 of 2019
Tamil Selvi ..Appellant/Petitioner/Complainant
-Vs-
1.Kumaravel
2.Sri Rajarajeshwari
3.Sanjeevan ..Respondents/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed Section 14A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,
against the order dated 23.04.2019 passed in C.M.P.No.3664 of 2018 on the file
of the Principal Sessions Judge of Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
For Respondents : Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar
JUDGMENT
The Appellant/complainant is said to have filed complaint before the Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam Police Station. The said complaint was 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019 registered in Crime No.909/2016 for the offence u/s.294(b), 323, 324, 441, 506(ii) and Sections 3(1)(c)(e)(d)(r)(s) and 3(2) 3(1)O of SC/ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act.
2. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report as mistake of fact and closed the complaint. Therefore, the appellant filed complaint before the Designated Court, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem under Section 200 Cr.P.C., for the above said alleged offences and the learned Designated Judge, after enquiry, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, this criminal appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant preferred a protest petition against the final report filed by the Police before the Additional Mahila Court, Salem in C.M.P.No.3664/2018. The Additional Mahila Court ordered re-investigation of the matter and accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights re- investigated the matter and filed a final report referring the case as “Mistake of Fact” and therefore, the petitioner has filed the complaint before the Designated Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019
4. The Designated Court, without considering the matter in the complaint, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant only on the ground that Section 3(1(s)( of SC/ST Act abusing any member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view is an offence. The complainant and witnesses have stated in their evidence and also in complaint, that the accused scolded the complainant and Witness No.3 that by saying “gunjtoah igah. gw ehna” the caste name which he belonged to. But the complainant and another witness are not belong to Parayan (giwad;) but they belong to Hindu Adi-Dravidar Community.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though in the community certificate, it is mentioned as Hindu Adi Dravidar, the appellant and the witness belong to the sub caste Paraiyan. For that reason only, the appellant approached the Additional Mahila Court, Salem who dismissed the petition on the ground of technicality. Against which, petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C., was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, who also dismissed the petition on the ground of technicality. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the appellant are prima facie made out and the Designated Court failed 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019 to consider the same and dismissed the complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C., which warrants interference of this court.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that a false case has been foisted against the respondents and the respondents never committed any offence. The appellant filed a complaint before the Sooramangalam Police Station. After investigation, the police filed a final report before the Magistrate as “mistake of fact”. The learned Magistrate sent a notice to the appellant. The appellant also filed a protest petition in C.M.P.No.3/2018 and the learned Magistrate ordered reinvestigation and accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights re-investigated the matter and filed a final report referring the case as “Mistake of fact”. Therefore, the appellant/complainant preferred a petition in C.M.P.No.3664/2018 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was also dismissed. Hence, there is no merit in the criminal appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
8. The appellant filed the complaint before the Sooramangalam Police Station against the respondents. The Police registered the case in Crime 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019 No.909/2016 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 441, 506(ii) and Section 3(1)(c)(e)(d)(r)(s) and 3(2)(1)O of SC/ST [Prevention of Atrocities] Act. Thereafter, investigating officer filed a final report and closed as mistake of fact. The Magistrate one who received the final report sent notice to the appellant and after receiving the same, the appellant filed protest petition in C.M.P.No.3664/2018 and the Magistrate also ordered reinvestigation to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights Commission and they also reinvestigated and filed a final report. Therefore, he filed the petition u/s.200 Cr.P.C. before the Designated Court since the offences are under Section 294(b), 323, 324, 441, 506(ii) and Section 3(1)(c)(e)(d)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)3(1)O of SC/ST Act.
9. A reading of the entire materials available on record would go to show that only the certificate produced by the complainant only shows that he belongs to Adi Dravida Community, whereas the allegations are to the effect that the respondents scolded him and another witness as “gunjtoah igah. gw ehna” Therefore, it differs from the community certificate whereas the petitioner has given the complaint against the respondents that they scolded him. The certificate produced by the appellant was that he belongs to Adi 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019 Dravida community which falls under SC/ST community. Therefore, the witnesses have clearly spoken that the respondents have scolded the appellant and another witness and charge sheet filed and the materials available that the offence is under SC/ST Act. Therefore, the Magistrate should have taken cognizance and committed the case to the Designated Court. The Designated Court should have taken note that the allegation is that appellant and another witness are scolded by their caste name and the caste certificate produced would go to show that the appellant belongs to Adi Dravida Community. Therefore, the court has given opportunity to the appellant. The appellant has given private complaint before the Designated court. The Designated court should have given opportunity to the appellant to put forth his case. But without looking into the allegations and the intention of the legislation, simply the Judge interpreted the case in his own way that the caste certificate shows as Adi Dravida Community and the respondents scolded with the words “gunjtoah igah. gw ehna” therefore, both differs, therefore, there is no charge and dismissed the petition.
10. A reading of the complaint filed before the Designated Court would go to show that action need to be taken on the complaint as per Section 200 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019 Cr.P.C., and the object of the legislation of the SCs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 Act is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief. In such view of the matter, the dismissal of the complaint by the Designated Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dated 23.04.2019 in C.M.P.No.3664 of 2018 is set aside. The Designated Court is directed to restore the petition given by the defacto complainant on file and proceed further u/s.200 Cr.P.C., and 204 Cr.P.C., from the point of view that the complainant has right to live with dignity and enforcing the rule of law.
11. A perusal of the statements and materials of the complaint given by the petition shows that there is sufficient ground for proceeding the matter. This court is of the opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding the matter. Therefore, the Designated Court is directed to proceed with the case by issuing warrant to the accused and proceed further in accordance with law. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019
12. With the above directions, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.
08.02.2021 Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order nvsri To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.
2.The Additional Mahila Court, Salem
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Social Justice and Human Rights,Salem
4.The Inspector of Police, Soormangalam Police Station
5.The Section Officer, High Court, Madras.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.661 of 2019 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
nvsri Crl.A.No.661 of 2019 08.02.2021 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/