Madras High Court
S. Kalpana vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 1 April, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.8899 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl. O.P. No. 8899 of 2024
and
Crl. M.P. No. 6361 of 2024
S. Kalpana ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vellore Sub Divison, Vellore District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore District.
3.K.Bagiyaraj ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2023, pending on the
file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vellore and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Karthikeyan
For Respondents : Mr.R.VinothRaja for R1 & R2
Government Advocate(Crl. Side)
Mr.V.B.Thirupathi Kumar for R3
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.8899 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in Spl.S.C.No23 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for
trial of cases under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Vellore.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the election of local body in
Tamilnadu held in the year 2021. The village president of Tholapalli
Panchayat Vellore District was declared as reserved for Schedule Castee.
The third respondent who is belonging to scheduled caste community,
contested for the post of village president of Anaicut Taluk, Vellore.
Similarly, the accused who is belonging to Hindu Kavara Naidu was
contested by producing fake and forged community certificate as if, she
belongs to schedule caste community and won the election. She was
declared as winning candidate for the post of panjayat president. Hence,
the complaint.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the second respondent issued
C.S.R.No.685 of 2022. However, the second respondent did not register
any FIR. Therefore, the third respondent was constrained to file a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
direction petition before this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 26690 of 2022. Only
thereafter the second respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.321 of
2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471 and
420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(q), 3()2(va) of SCST Act and forwarded the
same for investigation to the file of the first respondent. The first
respondent completed the investigation and filed a final report and the
same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the defacto
complainant having been lost in the election and with inferior motive
lodged the complaint. The complaint itself is not maintainable and the
third respondent ought to have filed election petition as contemplated
under Section 258 of Panchayat Act r/w 122 of Panchayat Election
Rules. The respondents 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to entertain any
complaint. Further, the trial Court also has no jurisdiction to question the
genuineness of community certificate, since the issue is no more res-
integra, questioning the genuineness can be gone into only by way of
appropriate authority.
5. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 in
Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development. The offence under SCST Act are not attracted as against
the petitioner, even according to the case of the prosecution. Further, no
Courts have jurisdiction to interfere with community certificate. It can be
tested before the District Level Committee.
6. On perusal of the record and also on the submissions made by
the learned Government Advocate and the third respondent revealed that
the charge itself levelled as against the petitioner, she forged and
fabricated the community certificate as if, she belongs to SC Community.
The jurisdictional Thasildar made statement that the petitioner was
issued community certificate as she belong to Hindu Kavara Naidu.
Further, on the complaint, the District Vigilance Committee conducted
detailed enquiry and found that the petitioner does not belong to SC
Community. Further, the said community certificate was also not issued
by the competent authority and it is forged and fabricated one by the
petitioner. Therefore, the Adi dravidar Welfare Officer, Vellore District
lodged complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiyatham,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
Vellore District by its proceedings dated 16.06.2023 cancelled the
community certificate produced by the petitioner along with her
nomination to the post of panjayat president.
7. Though, it is under challenged before this Court, it is pending
without any interim order. The RDO cancelled the community certificate
only after receipt of the report from the concerned Thasildar and the
District Level Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the charges under Sections
465, 466, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC are clearly made out as against the
petitioner. It is not the case of the third respondent that the petitioner's
election itself is void. The petitioner's candidature never challenged by
the third respondent and challenged by way of criminal complaint.
8. When it being so, the grounds raised by the petitioner are not
applicable to quash this proceedings and the judgment cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable to the case on
hand.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to confuse this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
Court as if, the complaint is lodged challenging the post of president and
the community certificate. As stated supra, it is not the case of the third
respondent that challenging the community certificate produced by the
third respondent or challenging her candidature or challenging the post
of president. The present case is simple that the petitioner forged and
fabricated the community certificate as if she belongs to SC Community
and contested in the election of panchayat president post, since the
Tholapalli panchayat, Anaicut Taluk, Vellore District is reserved for SC
alone.
10. Insofar as the offences under the SCST Act are concerned, it is
relevant to extract provision under Section 3(1) (q) of SCST Act, which
reads as under: -
“(q) gives any false or frivolous information to any
public servant and thereby causes such public servant to
use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
11. The petitioner forged and fabricated the community certificate
as if she belongs to SC Community and filed along with her nomination
to contest to the post of president in the reserved category and made the
general public that she belongs to SC Community and obtained votes
from the general public. Therefore, the said offence is made out under
Section 3(2)(va) of SCST Act.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner produced bogus community
certificate as if she belongs to SC Community and contested as against
the third respondent who belongs to SC community to the post of
president. Therefore, this offence is clearly made out as against the
petitioner.
13. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to quash the
entire proceedings.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported
in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the
High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the
witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their
statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as
against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while
deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while
deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 161
of Cr.P.C.
15. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated
17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the
disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after
appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this
Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated
02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi
Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for
quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark
upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the
Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint
which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences
complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions
requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and
whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in
entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused
will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would
arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial.
17. Further this Court cannot observe at this stage whether the
initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is
required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the
ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to
quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.23 of 2023 on the file of the
Special Court for trial of cases under Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Vellore. The petitioner is at liberty
to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. The trial Court is directed
to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this Order.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
AT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
To
1.The Special Court for trial of cases under Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Vellore.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vellore Sub Divison, Vellore District.
3.The Inspector of Police
Veppankuppam Police Station,
Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
AT
Crl.O.P.No.8899 of 2024 and
01.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/05/2025 04:17:39 pm )
