Kerala High Court
Sobhanakumari vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
2025:KER:12035
CRL.MC No. 139 of 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 139 OF 2023
CRIME NO.282/2015 OF Ernakulam North Police Station,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.388 OF
2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ARISING
OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.388 OF 2019 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
SOBHANAKUMARI
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O SHAJU, KUDAKKARA HOUSE, E DAPADY P.O,
BHARANANGANAM, PIN - 686578
BY ADVS.
MADHUSUDANAN P R
VIJAYAN MANNALY(V-226)
HASEENA KUNJOONJU(K/569/2015)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
2025:KER:12035
CRL.MC No. 139 of 2023
-2-
REPRESENTED BY THE THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CITY POLICE, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682032
3 REMA A.G
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O GOPI, MAPPIRANGAL VEEDU, NEAR MES EASTERN
SCHOOL, ELOOR,, PIN - 683501
BY ADVS.
Shiras Aliyar
P.M.MUJEEB REHIMAN(M-479)
OTHER PRESENT:
PP JIBU T S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:12035
CRL.MC No. 139 of 2023
-3-
'C.R.'
ORDER
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2025
The sole accused in S.C.No.388/2019 on the files of
the Special Court, Ernakulam, as per the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for
short SC/ST (POA) Act), arising out of Crime No.282/2015 of
Ernakulam Town North Police Station, has filed this Crl.M.C.
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
prayer is as under;
to quash Annexure A1 Final Charge against the
petitioner in S.C.No.388/2019 pending before
the Sessions Court, Ernakulam by setting aside
the proceedings initiated in Annexure-A5.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, the
2025:KER:12035
defacto complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor,
representing the State of Kerala and the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Kochi City Police Station, Ernakulam.
Perused the records placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the case diary as such produced by the learned
Public Prosecutor.
3. In this matter, FIR was registered on
23.02.2015 alleging commission of offences punishable under
Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under
Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/SC (POA) Act by the accused,
pertaining to an occurrence on 17.12.2013, after one year and
three months. The precise allegation is that on 17.12.2013,
when the 3rd respondent, a member of Scheduled Caste Pulaya
Community reached Women Police Station, Ernakulam in
connection with a complaint lodged by her alleging that one
2025:KER:12035
Maya, the wife of Rajendran was liable to pay Rs.6 lakh
obtained by Maya's husband Rajendran. Maya and the
accused herein were also reached the Police Station in this
connection. Therefore, the 3rd respondent was sent back with
direction to settle the dispute through process of court. At
about 12.30 hours, when the 3rd respondent, a member of
Scheduled Caste Community came out, the accused, who is
not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
Community abused her and commented that "കണ്ട
പുലക്കള്ളികൾ കള്ളക്കേസും കൊടുത്ത്
വന്നേക്കുകയാണ് കാശ് പറ്റിച്ചു മേടിക്കാൻ". On this
premise, the prosecution case is that the 3 rd respondent was
insulted and intimidated with intention to humiliate her
within public view by calling her caste name, by the accused.
Earlier Maya also was arrayed as the 2nd accused.
4. In this matter, initially Sri.S.T. Suresh Kumar,
2025:KER:12035
Assistant Commissioner of Police conducted investigation and
on completion of investigation, he filed Annexure-A3 Final
Report on 14.11.2015 reporting that the allegations are false
and accordingly, he requested the court to record the same
and close the case. After filing of the said report, during 2017,
the 3rd respondent filed complaint before the Director General
of Police, in turn the same was forwarded to the
Superintendent of Police, Kochi City and thereby, the case was
ordered to be further investigated. Thereafter, Annexure A1
Final Report was filed on 25.11.2017 by the then Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam alleging that the accused
committed the above offences.
5. Now Annexure A1 Final Report, which
negated Annexure A3 Final Report is under challenge at the
instance of the petitioner, who is the sole accused therein.
2025:KER:12035
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even
though as per Annexure A3, the earlier Investigating Officer
investigated the crime and found that the allegations are false,
thereafter even without any effective further investigation or
without recording statement of any other witnesses, relying
on the earlier statements and records, the present
Investigating Officer filed Annexure A1 without any basis. It is
pointed out that the petitioner went abroad in search of a job
after submission of Annexure A3 Final Report and all the
subsequent proceedings were in the absence of the petitioner
and the petitioner was totally unaware of the proceedings. It
is also pointed out that no fresh evidence or witness
statements, recorded to file Annexure A1 report in deviation
from Annexure A3. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent
lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station,
2025:KER:12035
Ernakulam and when the police intervened and sent back the
3rd respondent with advice to address her grievance in the
matter of Rs.6 lakh claimed against Maya, through process of
court, in order to squeeze the petitioner and Maya who is
stated as 2nd accused, initially, for return of the money due to
the petitioner from the husband of Maya, this false case is
foisted without any substance. Therefore, the quashment
prayer in the above circumstances is liable to be allowed.
6. Resisting these contentions, the learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that as per the
FIS recorded as that of the 3 rd respondent on 23.02.2015 and
as per the subsequent 161 statement recorded thereafter by
the SI of Police also, there is specific allegation that the
accused abused and intimidated the 3 rd respondent by calling
her caste name within public view. Therefore, the offences are
2025:KER:12035
made out, prima facie. Since the earlier Investigating Officer
wrongly filed final report treating the case as false, later, on
the basis of further investigation, Annexure A1 final report
was filed finding the truth of the allegations. According to the
learned counsel for the defacto complainant, since the
prosecution records prima facie show the ingredients to
attract offences under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal
Code as well as under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/SC (POA)
Act, quashment cannot be allowed and the matter must go for
trial.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor also
supported the contention of the 3rd respondent and opposed
quashment.
8. In this matter, the occurrence is on
17.12.2013, but the FIR was registered on 23.02.2015 on
2025:KER:12035
recording the statement of the 3 rd respondent on 23.02.2015.
In the statement, the allegation of use of abusive words by
calling the caste name of the 3rd respondent is stated. In the FI
Statement, the 3rd respondent stated that in this regard, she
lodged complaint before the SC/ST Commissioner,
Thiruvananthapuram and City Police Commissioner,
Ernakulam, but no action taken and thereafter, she lodged
complaint in the Adalat held at Traffic Police Station,
Ernakulam. In Annexure A3 Final Report, Sri.S.T.Suresh
Kumar, Assistant Police Commissioner stated that the
witnesses who gave statements supporting the case of the 3 rd
respondent were her relatives, and later when the statements
of CPO's and WCPO's attached to Women Police Station and
Ernakulam Town North Police Station were recorded, they
did not support such an occurrence. Accordingly, it was found
2025:KER:12035
by Sri.S.T.Suresh Kumar that when the 3 rd respondent noticed
that Rs.6 lakh due to her would not be realised from Maya, a
false case alleging calling of caste name and abuse was filed
against Maya and the petitioner and accordingly, the same
was reported as a false case.
9. On perusal of the FIS, the persons who
witnessed the occurrence as stated by the defacto
complainant are Mini, the sister of the 3 rd respondent, Mani,
the relative of the 3rd respondent and one Sudheer.
10. In Annexure A1 report, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
witnesses are Mini, Mani and Sudheer. Maya also shown as
the 5th witness.
11. Annexure A1 report was filed by Sri.K.Lalji,
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kochi City on 25.11.2017.
Coming to the witnesses in the final report (Annexure A1),
2025:KER:12035
Mini is none other than the brother's wife of the 3 rd
respondent. Mani also is a person, who, in fact, residing along
with Rema and Mini. Sudheer who is cited as the 4 th witness in
Annexure A1 Final Report given statement to the police
initially itself. According to Sudheer, he reached Ernakulam
Town North Police Station on 17.12.2023 to meet Sebastian,
the Sub Inspector of Police in connection with the surrender
of a vehicle before Ettumanoor Police Station. But, as per
Annexure A3 report, the Investigating Officer stated that
Sebastian, the Sub Inspector of Police given statement that
Sudheer did not meet him on the date of occurrence. Thus
Sri.S.T. Suresh Kumar disbelieved the statement of Sudheer
while filing Annexure A3 report.
12. Tracing the prosecution records with the aim
to find whether the prosecution allegations are true or the
2025:KER:12035
same is an attempt to implicate the petitioner in a serious
offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act, it is inevitable to refer
yesteryear of the case. Thus it is perceptive that the 3 rd
respondent's husband died 15 years before and she had
maintained a relationship with one Rajendran, the husband of
Maya, when the relationship between Maya and Rajendran
was in good terms. During continuance of the relationship, 3 rd
respondent gave financial assistance to Rajendran by
providing security of her property for availing Rs.6 lakh as
loan by Rajendran. Thereafter, Rajendran died without
clearing the loan liability and the property was put on sale by
the Bank in order to get back the money. Then the defacto
complainant/3rd respondent lodged complaint before the
Chief Minister and the Police but she could not get back the
money. Thereafter, in connection with the same complaint,
2025:KER:12035
the parties arrived at the Women Police Station on
17.12.2013. After having discussion with the officials of
Women Police Station, Police advised the 3 rd respondent to
address her grievance through court, since the allegation is
non-payment of money. Thereafter, the present allegation
was raised as one occurred in the premise of the Police
Station. Even though in the FI Statement given by the defacto
complainant on 23.02.2015 in relation to an occurrence on
17.12.2023 regarding filing of complaint before the SC/ST
Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and the District Police
Chief, no such complaints form part of the final report or the
case diary. In Annexure A1 final report, the Investigating
Officer stated about filing complaint by the 3 rd respondent to
get back Rs.6 lakh, though no reference regarding filing of
complaint in the matter of commission of SC/ST (POA) Act
2025:KER:12035
offences. Thus prima facie crime was registered at a belated
stage.
13. Coming to the offence under Section 3(1)(r)
and (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the same provides as under;
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place
within public view;
14. No doubt, intentionally insulting or
intimidating a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view with intent to humiliate
her by a person who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe Community is an offence under Section 3(1)
(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Similarly, abusing any member of a
2025:KER:12035
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by calling her caste name
in any place within public view by a person who does not
belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community is an
offence under Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Here the
allegation is confined to the use of calling abusive words and
calling the caste name of the defacto complainant, as extracted
hereinabove.
15. As already pointed out, this case emanated
after sending back the 3rd respondent by the Women Police to
explore remedy through court in the matter of return of Rs.6
lakh due to her from the husband of Maya (accused is the
brother's wife of Maya).
16. Before conclusion of the discussion, it is
felicitous to address the legislative intent behind SC/ST (POA)
Act. Undeniably, the intention is to protect the interest of
members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
2025:KER:12035
Communities from exploitation and atrocities at the instance
of the other caste members. No doubt, atrocities against
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
communities are not uncommon and the SC/ST (POA) Act is a
progressive legislature aimed to arrest atrocities against them.
Therefore, genuine cases would require strict action as per
law. At the time misuse of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act by
litigants having evil or wicked thoughts or being spiteful is the
menace now one could notice from various angles. To wit false
implication of poor person within the sphere of SC/ST (POA)
Act offence with intention to pressurize them with the threat of
arrest, detention, and also harsh punishment to settle a score
or to compel them to heed for the illegal and illogical demands
of the complainant is a tragic after math. Therefore, the misuse
of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act also to be taken note of.
So while dealing with cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the
2025:KER:12035
investigating agencies and the courts have a very vital role to
dissect truth from false and to check fallacy of the allegations.
When not accomplishing the aim by lodging complaints in
relation to some claims before the police or on getting negative
results in litigation or when other pending litigations in
between the parties, before raising the allegations as to
commission of offence/offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act by
one among the parties in rivalry the same is a strong reason to
see the falsity of the allegations. Once the facts of the case with
its yesteryear events, postulate false implication a court
exercising power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 shall not hesitate to do the same. While
registering crimes in the said circumstances the investigating
officers also must apply their mind to avoid false implication of
innocent victims in serious offences.
2025:KER:12035
17. Keeping these aspects in mind, scanning the
case in toto, it could be gathered that the initial report filed by
the Investigating Officer in Annexure A3 is substantiated by
materials and no new materials collected during further
investigation by the subsequent Investigating Officer, who
filed Annexure A1 Final Report. Further, 3rd respondent made
the allegation herein in her attempt to get back Rs.6 lakh
without opting legal remedies as per law. Thus the allegation
are prima facie not believable.
18. The aftermath of the above discussion is that,
the contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the
falsity of the allegations is prima facie made out, therefore,
quashment is liable to succeed.
19. In the result, this petition stands allowed. All
further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to
Annexure A1 Final Report in S.C.No.388/2019 on the files of
2025:KER:12035
the Special Court, Ernakulam stand quashed.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to
the trial court for information and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
bpr
2025:KER:12035
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL CHARGE
DATED 25.11.2017 OF CRIME NO. 282/15 OF
ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH THE
FI STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN
CRIME NO. 282/15 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN
NORTH POLICE STATION DATED 23.2.2015
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
14.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT
POLICE COMMISSIONER REPORTING THE CASE
AS ‘FALSE'
Annexure A4 THE PASSPORT COPY OF THE PETITIONER
Annexure A5 THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEARNED SESSIONS
JUDGE FROM 10.6.2019 ONWARDS
