Maheswaran vs State Through
2022 Latest Caselaw 17021 Mad

                                                         1

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


                                                Dated: 31/10/2022


                                                       CORAM
                                       The Hon'ble   Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN


                                         Crl.A(MD)Nos.619 and 620 of 2022
                     (1)Crl.A(MD)No.619 of 2022:-


                     Maheswaran                        : Appellant/A1

                                                        Vs.

                     1.State through
                       The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                       Sankarankovil Sub Division,
                       Tenkasi District.

                     2.The Inspector of Police,
                       KV Nallur Police Station,
                       Tenkasi District.
                       (Crime No.377 of 2022)    : R1 and R2/Complainants

                     3.Ramachandran                    : 3rd Respondent/De-facto

Complainant

Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P No.1994 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, dated 28/09/2002 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellant/A1, in Crime No.377 of 2022 on the file of the respondent, on bail, by allowing the appeal.

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

(2)Crl.A(MD)No.620 of 2022:-

1.Ramachandran @ Moorthy

2.Sudha @ Mariammal : Appellants/A2 and A3

Vs.

1.State through The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sankarankovil Sub Division, Tenkasi District.

2.The Inspector of Police, KV Nallur Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.377 of 2022) : R1 and R2/Complainants

3.Ramachandran : 3rd Respondent/De-facto Complainant

Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed in Crl.M.P No.2084 of 2022 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, dated 28/09/2002 and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary and enlarge the appellants/A2 and A3, in Crime No.377 of 2022 on the file of the respondent, on bail, by allowing the appeal.

                                  For Appellant(s)
                                  (in both cases)    : Mr.V.Kathirvelu
                                                       Senior counsel
                                                       for Mr.K.Prabhu

                                  For R1 and R2      : Mr.S.Ravi
                                                      Additional Public Prosecutor

                                  For 3rd Respondent : Mr.P.Ponraj

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

COMMON JUDGMENT

These Criminal Appeals have been filed to set

aside the order passed by the II Additional District and

Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1994

and 2084 of 2022, dated 28/09/2022.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

A suo motu FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector

of Police, attached to the respondent police station

namely Karivalamvanthanallur. He viewed a video. On a

secret enquiry, revealed that the child belong to SC

community were denied shopping eatable items by the

accused persons. On enquiry, it was found that in 2002, a

case was registered under the provisions of the Special

Act against A2. He and his mother namely Sudha @

Mariammal forced the de-facto complainant to withdraw the

case. A2 and A3 along with A1 approached one Raju in this

regard. But they refused. On refusal, all the accused

persons joined together, criminally intimidated and also

stated that no items from the shop will be sold to SC

community people. On the same day itself, A1 to A5

convened a meeting and decided to boycott the SC people

socially and economically. On 15/09/2002, one Ponnuthai,

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

who belongs to SC community went to A1 shop to purchase

grocery items. That was refused stating that a resolution

has been taken by his community people. Similarly, he

also denied the eatable items to the school going

childrens and that was recorded by himself and it was

spread through media. On the basis of the above said

information and enquiry, a case was registered and later,

alteration report was also filed.

3.Now all the three accused persons have filed

separate petitions before the Special Court and they were

dismissed on the ground of considering the seriousness of

the offence and the allegations. Against which, these

appeals have been preferred by the accused persons

separately.

4.Heard both sides. Both the appeals were heard

together and this common order is passed.

5.Politically, Indian community was liberated in

1947. Even after a lapse of 75 years of political

liberation, a section of Indian community people has not

been fully liberated socially and economically. Still

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

they are facing the wrath of communal supremacy. Even

after a lapse of 75 years of political liberation, social

and economical liberation still remains an illusion and

evasive to them.

6.In spite of enactment of Special Law and

introducing welfare measures to lift the weaker section

of the society to the common fraternity, still it could

not be achieved fully. The crime against the weaker

section of the society is on the rise annually, which is

evident from the National Crime record bureau data.

7.This is a classical case, in which even the

innocent school going childrens were not spared. They

have been even denied the eatables by the accused

persons. Since because, the adults belonging to their

community refused to withdraw the case, which was

registered against A2 and A3.

8.It appears that A2 and A3 with A1 approached the

de-facto complainant to withdraw the case in Crime No.406

of 2020, which was registered for the similar offence on

the file of the respondent police, when that was refused,

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

the above said resolution has been passed by the

community people to socially and economically boycott the

SC community people. What is distressing to note is that

A1 was dare enough to record the events through video and

that video was occasionally viewed by the de-facto

complainant. That is how, the above entire occurrence

came to the notice of the police. Threatening the de-

facto complainant in Crime No.406 of 2020 to withdraw the

case itself is a grievous offence. That cannot be

condoned on any ground.

9.In this context, the opinion of the Hon'ble

Justice Mr.S.Ravindra Butt in the case, which challenged

the amendment to the Special Act, section 18A in

W.P(C)1015/2018 that 'among the idea in the preamble

portion of the Constitution, the word' fraternity' is

least discussed and explored is worth relevant. He

further observed the importance of the fraternity in the

following:-

“liberty without equality or fraternity,

can well result in the perpetuation of existing

inequalities and worse, result in license to

indulge in society's basest practices”.

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

10.It was also observed that the enactment of the

Special Law is towards achieving the goal that is

mentioned in the preamble.

11.So what is required is a change in the mind set

of the society to treat all equally.

12.When that view was expressed by me, the learned

Senior counsel appearing for the appellants has rightly

come forward by filing an affidavit of undertaking that

they will not make any trouble to the de-facto

complainant in the above said Crime No.406 of 2020 and

they are at liberty to give evidence as they like.

13.He would further submit that what had happened

is unfortunate. Let me extract the para 3 in the

affidavit of undertaking filed by A1:-

“I submit that I express my deep regret and unconditional apology for the above said incident. I have realized that the said incident was unwanted and was not right of facts.

                                   Though    I       didn't      post     the   said       video
                                   with     intention         to    insult      anyone        or

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

breach the public peace, I understand that it has created unwanted repercussions in the social network and I deeply regret and apologize for the same.”

14.Even though, the learned Senior counsel, who is

appearing for the appellants during the course of

argument has submitted that there will not be any trouble

to the de-facto complainant in the above said crime to

withdraw the case, per contra, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor would submit that due to this rare

occasion and occurrence in the village, communal tension

still prevailing in the village. The neighboring villages

already suffered the law and order issue, because of five

murders that took place between the community people and

still tension is prevailing and police picketing is

posted in the occurrence village.

15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would

further submit that the undertaking affidavit filed by

the first accused may not serve any purpose. He has not

given any undertaking that they will continue to sell the

eatables items to other community people also. It is

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

further submitted that since tension is prevailing in the

area, if the appellants are released on bail, there is

possibility of escalation of tension. So, he made strong

objection to enlarge the appellants on bail. That was

supported by the victim's counsel.

16.Reading of the entire CD file shows that the

concerned video has also been recovered and now, it has

been sent for expert analysis and A1 presence is required

for voice sample. On the basis of the request made by the

Investigating officer, the first accused was prevented

from visiting the village for six months. So, strong

objection has been made by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

17.When the appellant/A1 in Crl.A(MD)No.619 of

2022 has come forward with the open undertaking

affidavit, that must be considered by this court to

restore the communal harmony in the village. Since the

first accused is already barred from occurrence village

for six months, I am of the considered view that

considering the fact that he was not an accused in Crime

No.406 of 2020, he may be released on bail by allowing

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

this appeal, by directing him to stay in Trichy and sign

before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy, until

further orders. Accordingly, Crl.A(MD)No.619 of 2022 is

allowed by setting aside the order passed by the II

Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR),

Tirunelveli, in Crl.M.P.No.1994 of 2022, dated 28/09/2022

and the appellant/A1 is ordered to be released on bail

on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum

to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional District

and Sessions Judge, (PCR), Tirunelveli and on further

condition that the appellant/A1 shall stay at Trichy and

report before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy until

further orders.

18.So far as the other accused are concerned

namely A2, he was accused in Crime No.406 of 2020 and

they are the prime persons, who made threat to the de-

facto complainant in the above said case to withdraw the

case, for which, A1 stated to have assisted. Considering

the fact that this is the second similar crime and also

considering the fact that they made a threat to the de-

facto complainant in the above said case, they are not

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

entitled for bail at this stage. So Crl.A(MD)No.620 of

2022 filed by A2 and A3 is dismissed.

31/10/2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To,

1.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge (PRC), Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Y.Othakadai Police Station, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

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

G.ILANGOVAN,J

er

Crl.A(MD)Nos.619 and 620 of 2022

31/10/2022

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

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