Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 697 (MAD)

S. Muralidharan v. M. Muthukaruppan

2006-03-13

M.JEYAPAUL

body2006
ORDER The petition is filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2603 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. 2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.2603 of 2005 launched for offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). 3. The complainant is working as Deputy Chief Signal and Telecommunication Engineer in Southern Railway Headquarters. The accused is serving as Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Egmore, Chennai-8. It is alleged in the complaint that during 1979-80 when the complainant and the accused underwent probationary training as Assistant Signal and Telecommunication Engineers, the accused uttered unparliamentary words calling the sub-caste name of the complainant in the presence of other colleagues with evil and mala fide intention to insult and annoy the complainant. The complainant magnanimously tolerated and excused the misbehaviour of the accused. The accused continued to insult the complainant with an intention to degrade him in the presence of friends and known persons. The accused has a grudge and enmity with the complainant for the past 25 years. The accused, without having been conferred with any jurisdiction or supervising authority over the complainant, influenced his position and instigated the General Manager, Southern Railway to issue charge memo and also to communicate adverse remarks in the annual confidential report of the complainant. The complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. By taking such false, malicious and vexatious legal proceedings against the complainant, the accused has committed offences punishable under Secs.3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Act. 4. The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, chose to take the case on file under the aforesaid penal provisions of law. 5. The accused in the petition seeking quashment has contended that the offences alleged to have been committed 25 years ago during 1979-80, cannot be the basis to rope him in for offences under the Act. 6. The quashment petition reads as follows: The complainant has falsely, maliciously and vaguely alleged in the complaint that the accused uttered unparliamentary words shouting the sub-caste name of the complaint to insult and annoy him. The accused was the controlling and supervising authority over the complainant when the complainant functioned as the Chief Communication Engineer from 2002 to 2003. 6. The quashment petition reads as follows: The complainant has falsely, maliciously and vaguely alleged in the complaint that the accused uttered unparliamentary words shouting the sub-caste name of the complaint to insult and annoy him. The accused was the controlling and supervising authority over the complainant when the complainant functioned as the Chief Communication Engineer from 2002 to 2003. The accused sent reports about the style of functioning of the complainant to the superior authorities in the course of discharging his official function which will not constitute the offences under the Act. As per the direction of the Secretary to the General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai, the accused made joint report in the annual confidential record of the complainant. The accused has duly discharged his duties in the matter of writing the annual confidential report of the complainant. A complaint has been lodged against the accused just to harass and take vengeance on him. 7. The allegation found in the complaint is that during 1979-80 the accused used unparliamentary words against the complainant, calling his caste name in the presence of colleagues way back in the year 1979-80 when he was undergoing training along with the accused. The complainant himself has stated in the complaint that such an action was condoned. 8. No further details about the date, time and place of occurrence of the offences under the Act is given. Very bald allegations have been made in the complaint that the accused continued to insult the complainant with an intention to degrade him in the presence of friends and known persons. 9. The real grievance of the complainant is that the accused, who does not have the authority to oversee the functioning of the complainant, has instigated the General Manager not only to issue the charge memo but also to write adverse remarks in his annual confidential record. 10. The accused has very fairly stilted that he had sent reports about the style of functioning of the complainant to the superior officer. Only at the behest of the Secretary to the General Manager, he jointly recorded the remarks in the annual confidential report of the complainant. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that inasmuch as false, frivolous and vexatious legal proceedings have been initiated against the complainant at the instance of the accused, the accused is liable to be punished under Sec.3(1)(ix) of the Act. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that inasmuch as false, frivolous and vexatious legal proceedings have been initiated against the complainant at the instance of the accused, the accused is liable to be punished under Sec.3(1)(ix) of the Act. 12. As per Sec.3(1)(viii) of the Act, if a person not being a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, gives any false and 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 the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, he is punishable thereunder. 13. Sec.3(1)(viii) of the Act would read that it is an offence to institute false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe by a person who is not a member of the said community. 14. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the false information furnished by the accused to the General Manager to take action against the complainant would attract the provision of Sec.3(1)(ix) of the Act. 15. The accused, in his capacity as the superior officer of the complainant, has communicated about the style of functioning of the complainant to the superior officer. Based on such report, the General Manager, Southern Railways has acted by issuing charge memo and recording adverse remarks in the annual confidential report of the complainant. 16. Sec.3(1)(ix) of the Act will not apply to the action taken by the superior officer against the member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in discharge of his official duties. If the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is countenanced, no superior officer can take any action for that matter against the misdeed of a member belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. 17. Of course, the complainant disputes the very authority of the accused in issuing the charge memo. It appears that the charge memo was not issued by the accused. He had just placed the matter before the superior officer for taking action. Recording adverse I remarks in the annual confidential record of the complainant that too at the instance of the superior officer will not amount to giving a false or frivolous information to a public servant. 18. Departmental proceedings are admittedly pending against the complainant. He had just placed the matter before the superior officer for taking action. Recording adverse I remarks in the annual confidential record of the complainant that too at the instance of the superior officer will not amount to giving a false or frivolous information to a public servant. 18. Departmental proceedings are admittedly pending against the complainant. Whether the complainant committed any lapse or not will have to be decided only in the domestic enquiry pending as against the complainant. The domestic enquiry will not amount to legal proceedings. Therefore no offence is made out in the complaint under Secs.3(1)(viii) and 3(1)(ix) of the Act. 19. The intentional insult to humiliate the complainant, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, has allegedly taken place about 25 years back. Further, it has been contended that such an act of the accused was condoned by the complainant. No further details has been given in the complaint as to when and where the insult was heaped on the complainant with a view to humiliate him. 20. The complainant has lodged the complaint without any basis on foundation. The complaint as such does not disclose any cognizable offence under the Act. Therefore, the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, has fallen in error in taking such a complaint on file. 21. In the result, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2603 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned VIE Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai stands quashed and the criminal original petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petitions stand closed.