Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 240 (MAD)

Pethu Alias Petha Perumal v. The State

2001-02-23

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2001
Judgment :- Pethu alias Petha Perumal has filed this petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 128 of 1999 on the file of the Special Court for S.C. & S.T. Act, Madurai taken on file for the offences under 341, 294(b) read with S. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant Porselvi; Panchayat Union Chairman, went to her village on 18-2-1999 and when she was about to leave her house by getting into her jeep, the petitioner/accused came near her and shouted at her in filthy language and scolded her using her caste name. The first informant came to the Devakottai Police Station and gave a complaint. This was registered in Crime No. 25 of 1999 for the offences under Ss. 341 and 294(b), IPC. Subsequently, on 6-3-1999, the Deputy Superintendent took up investigation and after finishing further investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Special Court for the offences referred to above. Challenging the cognizance taken by the Special Court in regard to the offences under Ss. 341 and 294(b) IPC read with S. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Mr. Govindarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the following contention : "For the alleged occurrence took place on 18-2-1999, the first informant gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police alleging that the accused wrongly restrained the first informant and abused her in filthy language. This was registered in Crime No. 25 of 1999 under Sections 341 and 294(b) I.P.C. But, all of a sudden on 6-3-1999, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation and filed the charge-sheet for the above referred offences including the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. The charge-sheet has been filed only on the basis of the statement of the first informant that the petitioner, while abusing her in filthy language, used her caste name also. This is not mentioned in the F.I.R. originally registered nor this has been stated by any of the witnesses examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The charge-sheet has been filed only on the basis of the statement of the first informant that the petitioner, while abusing her in filthy language, used her caste name also. This is not mentioned in the F.I.R. originally registered nor this has been stated by any of the witnesses examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act are liable to be quashed and the competent Court can go on with the trial for the offences under Sections 341 and 294(b) I.P.C." Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that though the other witnesses do not speak about the caste name, which has been used by the accused, the first informant in her statement would clearly give those details which would attract Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. Act and as such, the proceedings are not liable to be quashed. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without any reason whatsoever, the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up further investigation. On 6-3-1999, even though the case was registered under Sections 341 and 294(b) I.P.C. by the Devakotai Taluk Police Station, this Court summoned the original records from the Special Court and directed the Public Prosecutor to produce the Case Diary. It is seen from the case diary that the first informant, aggrieved over the non-registration of a case for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act, sent a petition to the Inspector of Police on 4-3-1999 giving full details of the incident. On that basis, the matter was referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who, in turn, examined the first informant, who stated that the accused used her caste name also, while abusing her in filthy language. It is true that none of the other witnesses would speak about that. As a matter of fact, one of the witnesses would state that the petitioner did not use the caste name. However, on the basis of the statement of the first informant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police after obtaining opinion from the Public Prosecutor filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. As a matter of fact, one of the witnesses would state that the petitioner did not use the caste name. However, on the basis of the statement of the first informant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police after obtaining opinion from the Public Prosecutor filed the charge-sheet for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the caste name has not been used by the petitioner, while the incident took place, Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act would not get attracted. Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as under : "Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but, which may extend to five years and with fine." Admittedly, in this case, the first informant would belong to a Scheduled Caste. She is the Chairman of the Panchayat Union. It is also noticed that the petitioner/accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, if a Scheduled Caste member is insulted with intention to humiliate, then this Section is attracted. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first informant initially did not mention that the accused used the caste name. It is equally true that the other witnesses also would not speak about that aspect. The first informant only in her second statement, stated that the accused abused her in filthy language and also used the caste name. So, the question as to whether such caste name has been used or not cannot be gone into at this stage by this Court. Though the belated statement of the first informant had not been supported by any other person with such statement, it is for the trial Court to consider whether such a statement is to be relied upon or not, after the first informant to let in evidence. Moreover, in order to attract Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused used the caste name. Moreover, in order to attract Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. Act, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused used the caste name. The section would clearly provide that if a Scheduled Caste member is insulted or intimidated with intention to humiliate the said member, then the offence is committed. Therefore, all these aspects have to be gone into only by the trial Court and not by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Crl. M. Ps. are also dismissed. The trial Court is directed to go on with the trial and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to sent back the records forthwith. Petition dismissed.