Madras High Court
Devaki vs The Superintendent Of Police on 21 February, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
CRL.O.P. No. 27713 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-02-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP NO. 27713 of 2023
AND
CRL MP NO. 19207 OF 2023
Devaki
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Superintendent Of Police
Coimbatore Rural,
Coimbatore - 641 0182
2. The Inspector Of Police
Pollachi West Police Station,
Pollachi, Coimbatore - 642 001.
3. Manikkaraj ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to call for records and quash the FIR in Crime No.619 of 2023 on
the file of the 2nd respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari,
Senior Advocate for
Mrs.V.Srimathi
For Respondents
For R1 & R2: Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R3 : Mr. B.Mohan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CRL.O.P. No. 27713 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R.
registered in Crime No. 619 of 2023 on the file of 2nd respondent police for
the alleged offence under Secs. 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 30.11.2023, there was a Pollachi
Municipal Committee meeting held under the head of Chairman and after
completion of meeting, when the petitioner came out from the meeting hall,
she abused the other members by using their caste name, due to which, other
members sustained severe mental agony. On the complaint lodged by the 3rd
respondent before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent registered the F.I.R.
in Crime No. 619 of 2023.
3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel for petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is an elected 5th ward Councillor of Pollachi
Municipality and she is not affiliated to any political party and she was
elected as an independent candidate. As a duty, she had gone to attend the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
meeting. Following their usual practice and making a mockery of
democratic process, without any discussion all resolutions were considered
to have been passed. Though the petitioner raised objections as against the
procedures being adopted, it was not considered and majority started
shouting to drown out the petitioner's voice of objections, but the Chairman
did not take any action on the shouting projected as against the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner informed that she wanted to issue a public
statement as to the manner in which the council is functioning. Hence, a
false complaint has been foisted as against the petitioner as if the she had
abused him by using their caste name viz., “chakkili”. The petitioner never
scolded any individual person. Further, though the word in general would
not attract any of the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in
fact, the word Chakkili is akin to Yaman and it means disorganised manner
in which the persons behave. Therefore, even as per the averments made in
the complaint, which does not disclose any commission of offence. In
support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of this court
reported in 1993 (1) MWN (Cr.), in which this Court held that it is not the
case of prosecution that several of the community people residing there
have come forward with the grievance against the accused on the alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
derogatory insultation do not refer to P.W.s 1 and 2 but refers generally,
simply because P.W.s 1 and 2 belong to Adi Dravida caste it is not safe to
record a conviction as against the accused. The prosecution is bound to
prove that the derogatory words of insultation by the accused with reference
to particular person involved therein directly and that the overtact of the
accused must constitute directly the guilt of the accused in passing
derogatory and insultory remarks.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
respondents 1 and 2, on instructions submitted that the complainant and
other three ward members belong to Schedule Caste “Arunthathiyar”
community. In the open meeting hall, when there are so many public were
present in the meeting, the petitioner abused them by using their caste name.
Therefore, it attracts the offence under Sec. 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further, it is only a F.I.R. and it cannot be
quashed at the threshold.
5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner is not at all applicable to the case in hand for the simple
reason that it was held as against the conviction under the Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955. Now, the case on hand, it is only F.I.R. stage. That
apart, the offences registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
would be relevant to extract the provisions under Sec.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) as
follows :-
3. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,
(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;
3. (1) (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
Thus, it is clear that whoever not being a member of scheduled caste or a
schedule tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intention to
humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled tribe in any place
even in the public view would attract the offence under Sec. 3(1)(r) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further, whoever abused any member
of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in a public view, it
would attract the offence under Sec.3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner is not belong to Scheduled caste or
Scheduled tribe community. Further, the 4th ward councillor, who attended
the meeting belong to Scheduled Caste “Arunthathiyar” community. After
the meeting convened, the petitioner came out, in the presence of general
public and other ward councillors, she abused the councillors by using their
caste name and scolded them in filthy language. Therefore, there is a prima
facie case made out from the complaint lodged by the 3rd respondent to
register the F.I.R. in Crime No. 619 of 2023 for an offence under Sec.3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further, it was
happened in the public place in front of general public including ward
councillors. Therefore, the 3rd respondent and other ward councillors were
personally humiliated by derogatory and insulting remarks made by the
petitioner by using their caste name. Therefore, it would clearly attracts the
offence as stated by the 3rd respondent as against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to quash the F.I.R.
registered in Crime No. 619/2023 for an offence under Sec.3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and this petition is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
However, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the investigation and
file a final report within a period twelve weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
21.02.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rpp
To
1. The Superintendent Of Police
Coimbatore Rural,
Coimbatore - 641 0182
2. The Inspector Of Police
Pollachi West Police Station,
Pollachi, Coimbatore - 642 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rpp
21.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
