S.R.Balasubramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
2025 Latest Caselaw 2983 Mad

Madras High Court

S.R.Balasubramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2025

Author: B.Pugalendhi

Bench: B.Pugalendhi

                                                                                    Crl.A(MD)No.10 of 2025

                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED: 19.02.2025

                                                     CORAM:

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

                                          Crl.A(MD)No.10 of 2025

                S.R.Balasubramanian
                                                                                             ... Appellant
                                                           Vs
                1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
                Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                Dindigul Rural, Dindigul District.

                2. B.Balavenkatesan

                3. K.Madasamy

                4. B.Karthik

                5. B.Seenivasan
                (R2 to R5 are suo-motu impleaded as per order
                of the Court, dated 07.01.2025)

                6.The Superintendent of Police,
                CBCID, South Zone, Chennai.

                7.The Director,
                National Commission for Scheduled Castes,
                Government of India, 2nd Floor, Block-5, Shastri Bhawan,
                Chennai-600 006.

                8.The Secretary,
                Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
                High Court Building, Chennai
                (R6 to R8 are suo-motu impleaded as per order of this
                Court, dated 19.02.2025)                                                ... Respondents

                1/23


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis           ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )
                                                                                           Crl.A(MD)No.10 of 2025

                Prayer: This Criminal Appeal Case filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C to set
                aside the order, dated 11.09.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1265 of 2022 by the
                Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul,
                Dindigul District.
                                         For Appellant         :         Mr. B.Jameelarasu

                                         For Respondent :                Mr.P.Kottaichamy (R1)
                                                                         Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                                                                         Mr.C.Vakeeswaran (R2-R5)

                                                         JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed as against the order, dated 11.09.2024

passed in Crl.M.P.No.1265 of 2022 by the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of

Cases Under SC/ST (POA) Act, Dindigul, Dindigul District, dismissing the

protest petition filed by the appellant.

2.The appellant is a practicing Advocate. He has filed 3 suits

against the respondents 2 to 5 and also lodged a complaint as against Accused

No.1 in Cr.No.637 of 2018. Therefore, with this motive, on 29.06.2018, the

accused persons/R2-R5 have abused the appellant and also intimidated him.

Since the respondents 2 to 5 are influential persons, the respondent police had

not registered the case in the first instance and therefore, the appellant had

approached the higher officials on 06.07.2018. The case was registered only on

17.10.2018 in Cr.No.700 of 2018 under sections 341, 506(i) IPC and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

Section3(1)(r) and 3(1)(va) of SC/ST Act, on the directions of the

Superintendent of Police. Even thereafter, the first respondent has neither

conducted any investigation nor issued any summons and has filed a negative

report in the year 2018, without obtaining the approval from the District

Vigilance Monitoring Committee. This mistake was pointed out before the

District Vigilance Monitoring Committee by referring to the provision under

Rule 17 of the SC/ST Rules. Thereafter, at the instance of the District Vigilance

Monitoring Committee, the case was again investigated by the 1st respondent.

However, even after the second investigation, the first respondent police

intentionally filed a negative report again before the District Vigilance

Monitoring Committee and after its approval, it was presented before the trial

Court. The trial Court has also dismissed the Protest Petition filed by the

appellant in a vague manner without considering the points raised. Therefore,

the appellant is before this Court.

3.The learned counsel for the appellant has made his submissions

as under:

■ The respondent police has neither enquired the appellant nor issued

any summons.

■ A summon for enquiry was issued only on 11.08.2022, whereas, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

final report was initially filed in the year 2018 itself and the second

final report was filed on 02.08.2021. The District Vigilance

Monitoring Committee has also approved the same on 15.04.2022.

Till the filing of the final report, the respondent police have not

enquired the appellant/complainant in Cr.No.700 of 2018.

■ Since the final report was filed without examining this

appellant/victim, the trial Court ought to have appreciated the same

and set aside the final report and transferred the investigation to

some other investigating agency. However, the trial Court has

simply referred to the objections raised by the respondent police

that there are certain criminal cases pending against him, dismissed

the application filed by the appellant mechanically.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on the orders

of the State Human Rights Commission in SRC No.10976 of 2018, dated

18.06.2021 and submits that the conduct of the Police Officers in not registering

the case in time and not conducting the investigation properly was addressed by

the State Human Rights Commission on his petition and the concerned

Inspector of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police were also imposed

with penalties. Therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

5.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent

police submits that the though the appellant is a practicing Advocate, he is a

history-sheeted rowdy, having several cases to his credit. The learned

Government Advocate further submits that the appellant was duly examined in

the year 2018 and during investigation, they found that there was no such

occurrence took place as projected by the appellant. Therefore, they referred the

case as 'mistake of fact', however, they failed to obtain the approval from the

District Vigilance Monitoring Committee inadvertently. After the orders of the

District Vigilance Monitoring Committee, the materials were placed before the

said Committee and it was again investigated by the investigating agency and

even thereafter, they do not find any materials to substantiate the case of the

complainant/appellant and therefore, they closed the case again as 'mistake of

fact'. The appellant was also served with the referred notice. He has also filed an

application before the concerned trial Court protesting the final report in

Crl.M.P.No.1265 of 2022.

6.The learned Government Advocate further submits that knowing

that the case has been referred as 'mistake of fact', the appellant has submitted a

representation on 07.07.2022 requesting the police to arrest the respondents 2 to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

5. For this representation, dated 07.07.2022, he was called for an enquiry by

summons, dated 11.08.2022. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim otherwise.

7.The learned Government Advocate has also relied on the orders

of the Human Rights Commission, dated 18.06.2021 and submits that even

before the Human Rights Commission, the appellant has made an argument that

he was issued with a summon, dated 16.11.2018 calling for his appearance on

17.11.2018. Therefore, the appellant cannot now turn around and take a plea

that he was not at all examined by the investigating agency.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5 submits

that this appellant is a blackmailer. By using his profession as an Advocate, he

used to blackmail the traders at Natham. He used to demand money from the

traders. In the event if anybody is not obliging his demand, then he will throw

their goods away and file a suit for injunction and create a case as if, he is in

possession. The appellant has indulged in several criminal cases and history

sheet was also opened against him.

9.The learned counsel has also relied on a writ petition in WP(MD)

No. 19987 of 2018, wherein, this Court has passed the following orders:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

(i)Order dated 19.08.2018:

“2. It is seen from records that the petitioner purchased three shops on 12.10.2017 from one Senthil Kumar. On

10.11.2017 the third respondent claiming himself to be an Advocate met the petitioner and his father and demanded commission of Rs.15,00,000/-. Inorder to avoid any controversy , the father of the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent initially and another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was also paid to the third respondent. Thereafter the third respondent demanded further sum and went to the extent of forcibly taking possession of the shop in shop No.247 and also put up Advocate office with the name board of the sixth respondent. The petitioner gave a complaint before the respondent police in this regard on 20.06.2018 and the same is till date pending. The petitioner has approached this Court for restoration of the shop illegally occupied by the third respondent.

3. It is seen from the records that there are nearly 27 complaints pending against the third respondent in various places. The third respondent is using the status of an advocate as a shield and is continuing with the notorious activities of threatening people and taking illegal possession of the property and demanding mamool from innocent public. Persons like the third respondent are a shame to the profession.

4. This Court has time and again taken various actions against such notorious advocates and passed various directions to take action against them. All the persons who are involved in this case namely the respondents 3 to 6 are all advocates(peoples

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

calling themselves as advocates) and instead of carrying on with their duty inside the court, are carrying on with rowdy activities outside the court.

5. This Court cannot shut its eyes whenever such incidents are brought to the notice of this court. It is this Court's duty to safeguard the purity and status of this institution and this court will not allow the name of the institution to be spoil by wrong black sheeps like the respondents 3 to 6.

6. The Secretary Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is suo motu impleaded in this writ petition. The petitioner is directed to immediately give a complaint to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry with regard to the criminal activities committed by respondents 3 to 6. This complaint shall be given within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Bar Council is directed to immediately initiate action against respondents 3 to 6.

7. This Court directs the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District to provide sufficient police force to the second respondent and ensure that the petitioner is put in possession of the property situated at shop no. 247 Karuppanna Pillai Street, Natham Town, Dindigul District and submit a report before this court on 27.09.2018.”

(ii)Order, dated 27.09.2018:

“2.Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar, Standing Counsel for the Bar Council would submit that the Bar Council of Tamilnadu already initiated proceedings against the third respondent namely Mr.S.R.Balasubramanian and passed an order on 08.03.2016, cancelling the name of Mr.S.R.Balasubramanian from the Rolls of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

the Bar council and directed his name to be removed from the Rolls of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry immediately. This order was subsequently executed in R.O.C.No. 3509 of 2016, dated 19.09.2016 and the name of the said S.R.Balasubramanian was removed from Rolls. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court about the fact that the said S.R.Balasubramanian filed an appeal before the Bar Council of India in Revision Petition No.47 of 2016 and the Bar Council of India by proceedings, dated 27.11.2016 had passed interim order staying the proceedings of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu. The proceedings are pending before the Bar Council of India for the last two years.

3.Taking advantage of the pendency of the appeal before the Bar Council of India, the third respondent namely S.R.Balasubramanian is continuing to indulge in illegal activities and subsequently, three cases have been registered against him in Crime No.161 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 341, 145, 186 of IPC, Crime No.183 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 143, 145, 188 and 344 of IPC and Crime No.9 of 2016 for the offences 143, 188 and 285 of IPC. It is seen from the records that the said S.R.Balasubramanian is taking advantage of status as an Advocate and is continuing to indulge in illegal activities by conducting kangaroo Courts and arm twisting innocent persons and extracting money by interfering with the lawful possession of various persons.

4.While so, this case is the latest one, where again the said S.R.Balasubramanian has indulged in illegal activities and has extracted a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the appellant and has also gone to the extent of forcibly taking possession of the shop and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

putting up an Advocate office. In view of the orders passed by this Court on 19.09.2018, the Superintendent of Police had taken possession of the property and handed it over to the appellant.

5.The said S.R.Balasubramanian is continuing to indulge in illegal activities regularly only by using his status as an Advocate as a shield. He is also taking advantage of the fact that the appeal is pending before the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of India has granted stay of the order of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu removing the said S.R.Balasubramanian from the Rolls. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said S.R.Balasubramanian does not deserve to continue in the Rolls of the Bar Council and his-continuance in the Rolls will only bring disgrace to the profession.

6.The appellant has already given a representation against the other Advocates namely S.Saravanakumar and V.Subramani to the Bar Council of Tamilnadu to take action against them. The learned Standing counsel would submit that the representation has been received by the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and appropriate action is being taken on the said representation. In this case it is also seen that one Vetriselvam who claims himself to be a Law College Student is also indulging in illegal activities along with the other Advocates. The Bar Council of Tamilnadu is directed not to Enroll Mr.Vetriselvam as an Advocate on the Rolls of the Bar Council without getting clearance of this Court. It is always better to prevent such persons from getting into the profession at the threshold stage itself.

7.The Bar Council of India is suo motu added as a party in this Writ petition. Mr.Subash Babu, Standing counsel for Bar Council of India shall obtain necessary instructions in this regard

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

from the Bar Council of India.

8.In view of the above, the following directions are passed in this Writ Petition.

a. The Bar Council of India is directed to immediately take up the Revision Petition No.47 of 2016 for hearing and complete the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The Standing Counsel for the Bar Council of India is directed to intimate the Bar Council of India about the order passed by this Court.

b.The Bar Council of Tamilnadu is directed to immediately initiate action against S.Saravanakumar (Enrol. No.4049/2011) and V.Subramani (Enrol.No.1368/2017) based on the representation made by the appellant.

c.The Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry is directed not to Enroll Mr.Vetriselvam without getting the clearance from this Court in the present Writ Petition.

d.Mr.S.R.Balasubramanian (Enrol.No.2428/2008), Mr.S. Saravanakumar (Enrol. No.4049/2011) and Mr.V.Subramani (Enrol.No.1368/2017) are hereby restrained from practising before the High Court of Judicature, Madras and also before any other Court within Tamilnadu and Puducherry, pending disposal of this Writ Petition.”

10.He has also relied on the orders of this Court in the anticipatory

bail application filed by this appellant in Crl.O.P(MD) No. 17512 of 2018,

wherein, this Court while dismissing the petition by order, dated 11.10.2018 has

recorded the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General as to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

the criminal cases pending against the appellant as under:

“6.Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the first accused is a habitual offender and he involved in so many cases in and around Dindigul District. He also furnished the details of the cases involved by the first accused, which read as follows:

Natham Police Station Sl.No. Crime No. Sections

1. 59/1994 147, 341, 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C.

2. 181/1995 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

3. 21/1996 147, 148, 324, 427 and 307 of IPC

4. 278/1996 147 and 506(i) of I.P.C.

5. 617/1999 Natham Police Station History sheet ledger

6. 191/2006 147, 148, 447, 427, 294 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

7. 23/2009 147, 387, 341 and 506(i) of I.P.C.

8. 249/2011 147, 148, 447, 427, 294 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. And 109 of I.P.C. and 379 (NP) of I.P.C.

9. 503/2015 153, 186, 188 and 506(i) of I.P.C. 10.505/2015 147, 341, 188, 353 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. 11.510/2015 341, 145 and 188 of I.P.C. 12.625/2015 147, 120(B), 143, 145, 188 and 341 of I.P.C. 13.627/2015 147, 143, 145 and 188 of I.P.C. 14.629/2015 147, 148, 341, 294(B), 323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 4 of TNWH Act

15.STC No.270/2016 143, 188 and 285 of I.P.C. 16.161/2016 341, 145 and 186 of I.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

17.183 of 2016 147, 143, 145, 188 and 344 of I.P.C. 18.181 of 1995 343 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

Dindigul Police Station Sl.No. Crime No. Sections

1. 424/1995 145 of Cr.P.C.

2. 1984/1997 147, 447 and 427 of I.P.C.

3. 1510/1998 147, 341, 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

4. 2543/1998 146 and 447 of I.P.C.

5. 59/1994 147, 341, 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C.

6. 414/1999 145 of Cr.P.C.

Sanarpatti Police Station Sl.No. Crime No. Sections

1. 138/1995 147, 148, 447, 427 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.

2. 142/1996 Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. Thadikombu Police Station Sl.No. Crime No. Sections

1. 213/2000 147, 148, 341, 332, 504, 307 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (w) TNPPDL Act.” .....

10.Being a noble professional, the first accused completely damaged the profession by indulging in criminal activities. Further, he misused his noble profession in the illegal activities. Insofar A2 is concerned, he connivance along with other accused collected mamool from the defacto complainant and his family members. Fourth accused also hand in glove with the first accused involved in a heinous crime. Further,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

because of their threatening and collection of mamool, the father of the defacto complainant died on 14.03.2018. A5 and A6 also being advocates joined in the hands of the first accused committed the crime. As far as the 7 th accused is concerned, he has not even completed any Law degree and posed him as Advocate committed this crime. Therefore, their custodial interrogation is very much needed in this case.

11.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, all the three criminal original petitions are dismissed.”

11.The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has

intimidated the respondent No.4/Karthik on 20.09.2018, for which, the 4th

respondent has lodged a complaint against the appellant. This prompted the

appellant to file Crl.OP(MD) No.17512 of 2018 seeking anticipatory bail. In

order to get over from that complaint and to intimidate the respondents 2 to 5,

this case has been foisted against the respondents 2 to 5 by misusing the

provisions under the Prevention of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

He has also pointed out that this appellant has enrolled as an Advocate in the

year 2008 and from then onwards, he has indulged in 12 cases. Even before

that, he was a habitual offender and also history-sheeter.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

12. The learned Government Advocate has also confirmed that a

history sheet was opened against the appellant.

13.In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the history sheet was subsequently revoked by the police.

14.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials placed on record.

15.The appellant, who is a practicing Advocate, has involved in

several criminal cases and was also recorded as a history sheet rowdy. He

lodged a complaint, as if, he was intimidated by the respondents 2 to 5 for

having filed 3 suits against them. All these suits are for injunction/declaration.

On the other hand, the allegation against the appellant is that the appellant along

with two other Advocates are in the habit of demanding mamools, throwing

away the things of the traders and occupying the shops, filing injunction suits

and intimidating them, in order to exploit money. If these allegations are true,

then, it is very danger to the Society. If a person in the guise of an Advocate,

indulge in such activities, then it would be very difficult for the common citizen

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

to defend those accused.

16.The nature of complaint of the appellant is that he was

intimidated by the respondents 2 to 5. Admittedly, they are the defendants in the

suit, which was filed by the appellant. The occurrence is said to have taken

place on 29.06.2018. However, his complaint was not registered and therefore,

he made a representation before the higher officials on 06.07.2018. The

appellant an Advocate, in the event, if his complaint was not attended to by the

police by registering a case, then he is having a remedy to approach the higher

officials under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C and another remedy under Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C. Here, the appellant, has approached the higher officials only

on 06.07.2018, after a period of seven days from the date of alleged occurrence,

ie., on 29.06.2018. He is not having any explanation for the delay in

approaching the higher officials as required under Section 154 (3) of Cr.P.C.

The allegation of the complainant/appellant is that he was criminally

intimidated by the traders. However, there was no injury. The occurrence is also

said to have taken place in a broad daylight in the bazaar. It is quite

unbelievable that the traders have intimidated a person like the appellant, an

Advocate, who is also having several criminal cases to his credit.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

17.Be that as it may, the allegation is that he was criminally

intimidated. The criminal intimidation can be registered only if the complainant

felt the intimidation. Admittedly, the complaint was sent only by way of post to

the higher officials on 06.07.2018. In the event, if his complaint was not

attended to by the police on 29.06.2018 as projected by him, then he would

have lodged a complaint by way of a registered post immediately to the higher

officials. This Court is not approving his conduct in setting the law in motion

only on 06.07.2018 for the incident that had takes place on 29.06.2018.

18.The learned counsel for the appellant by referring to a summon

issued by the investigating agency on 11.08.2022, contended that the appellant

was not at all examined by the investigating agency in Cr.No.700 of 2018.

However, the appellant himself has stated before the Human Rights

Commission in SHRC number 10976 of 2018 that he has received a summon in

Cr.No.700 of 2018 on 16.11.2018 for an enquiry to be conducted on 17.11.2018.

The police has also filed the initial final report on 20.10.2018 and referred

notice was also affixed on his house on 09.02.2019 in the presence of Village

Administrative Officer. The final report was filed, however, without adhering to

the provisions under Rule 17 of the SC/ST Rules. The matter was again

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

investigated on the directions of the District Vigilance Monitoring Committee

and the first respondent has conducted the investigation and has filed the second

closure report on 29.05.2022. The referred notice was also served on the

appellant.

19.The appellant has again submitted a representation, dated

07.07.2022 to the respondent police requesting them to arrest the accused in

Crime No.700 of 2018. According to the police, the notice, dated 11.08.2022

was issued on the representation of the appellant, dated 07.07.2022. It is seen

that before closing the case in Cr.No.700 of 2018, already referred notice of

enquiry was issued to the appellant on 02.08.2021. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to accept the case of the appellant based on this summon, dated

11.08.2022 that he was not at all examined by the investigating agency.

20.This Court has also taken note of the complaint lodged by the

respondent No.4 on 20.06.2018, which was treated as petition enquiry in CSR

No.165/2018. The case was registered only in the month of September, 2018. In

the meantime, this appellant appears to have lodged this complaint on

06.07.2018, as if, he was intimidated on 29.06.2018.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

21.For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere

with the order of the trial Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is

dismissed.

22.Before parting, this Court would like to remind about the story –

The boy who cried Tiger.

A shepherd boy repeatedly cried "Tiger!", even when there was

no tiger, playing a prank on the villagers. The villagers would rush to

his aid, only to find it was a false alarm. When a tiger finally

appeared, the villagers didn't believe his cries for help, thinking it

was another prank. The tiger attacked and carried away some of his

sheep. The boy learned a valuable lesson about the importance of

honesty.

23.The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, commonly referred to as the SC/ST POA Act, was enacted

i) to prevent atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes by non-SC/ST individuals;

ii) to protect and safeguard the rights and dignity of SCs and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

STs; and

iii) to ensure punishment for those committing atrocities

against SCs and STs.

24.The allegation levelled against the appellant is that he, along

with two others, is indulging in collecting mamool and harassing the people, by

using the provisions of SC / ST Act. Just as the shepherd boy repeatedly cried

"Tiger!" without any real danger, some individuals may misuse the SC/ST Act

by making false accusations or exaggerating incidents.

25.An analogy can be drawn on The Boy Who Cried Tiger v.

Misuse of SC/ST Act. Just as the villagers eventually stopped believing the

boy's cries, the misuse of the SC/ST Act can lead to a situation where,

i) Authorities and society may become skeptical of genuine complaints

(Erosion of trust).

ii) the Act's effectiveness in protecting marginalized communities can be

weakened (Dilution of the law's impact); and

iii) the lives and reputations of innocent individuals would be ruined

because of these false accusations.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

26.Therefore, this Court suo-motu impleads

1. The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, South Zone, Chennai;

2. The Director, National Commission for Scheduled Caste, Chennai; as parties to this appeal.

27.The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, South Zone, Chennai,

shall conduct an investigation, through any Inspector of Police, as to the

averments made as against this appellant, find out the truth and file a report

before this Court, as well as before the Director, National Commission of

Scheduled Caste, Chennai. The Director, National Commission for Scheduled

Caste, Chennai, shall take appropriate action, if it is found that the provisions of

SC / ST Act has been misused.

28.Since it is represented that as against the proceedings of the Bar

Council of Tamilnadu removing the appellant from the Rolls of the Bar Council

of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, a revision is pending before the Bar Council of

India in Revision Petition No.47 of 2016, this Court suo-motu impleads the

Secretary, Bar Council of India, New Delhi, as a party to this appeal

proceedings. The Bar Council of India is directed to take a decision on the

revision filed by this appellant, which is pending from the year 2016 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

dispose of the same, as directed in WP(MD)No.19987 of 2018, within a period

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

29.For reporting compliance, list this appeal in the second week of

July, 2025.

19.02.2025 Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC: Yes/No Note: Registry is directed to issue order copy after making necessary amendment

PNM

To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural, Dindigul District.

2.The Superintendent of Police, CBCID, South Zone, Chennai.

3.The Director, National Commission for Scheduled Caste, Chennai;

4.The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, High Court Building, Chennai

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

PNM

JUDGMENT IN

19.02.2025

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 07:07:52 pm )