Tamil Selvi vs Kumaravel
2021 Latest Caselaw 2871 Mad

                                                                                  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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/