Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2431 (MAD)

Subramanian v. Ramalingam

2014-08-06

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. The complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli, whose complaint was taken on file by the said Magistrate as Crl.M.P. No.2627/2013, is the petitioner in the present Criminal Revision Case. The complaint preferred by him against the respondents herein under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C., by order dated 15.07.2013. Impugning the said order, the complainant has preferred the present revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 2. Notice before admission was given to the respondents and the respondents are also represented by their respective counsel. 3. The submissions made by Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Vinayak, learned counsel for the first respondent and by Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel for the second respondent, are heard. The grounds of revision and the materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused. Such a perusal and consideration reveals that due to a quarrel between two college going students, the complaint came to be made as if an occurrence took place on 24.03.2003 at about 9.30 hours. In the complaint it had been stated that the respondents, besides abusing the complainant and his son with filthy language, assaulted them with foot and wooden logs. It was also stated that the petitioner sustained injuries for which he took treatment, at the first instance, in the Government General Hospital, Tiruchirapalli and then, in a private hospital called 'Geethanjali Hospital'. It was also averred in the complaint that the revision petitioner was given treatment as an inpatient for two days in the Government General Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. 4. Nether the accident register nor the wound certificate and nor the discharge summary came to be produced by the petitioner to make out a prima facie case that he was assaulted by the respondents causing injuries for which he had to take treatment. Excepting the revision petitioner/complainant, whose statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., no other witness was produced for being examined on oath. Excepting the revision petitioner/complainant, whose statement was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., no other witness was produced for being examined on oath. Though there is an allegation that the respondents caused a criminal intimidation and that they committed the offence of causing insult to the revision petitioner, referring to his community, purporting to attract Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, there is absence of clear averment that the revision petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and that the persons against whom accusation has been made do not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in which event alone the provisions of the said Act would get attracted. 5. Considering all those aspects, the learned Judicial Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that no prima facie materials were produced before him to make out a case for any of the offences alleged in the complaint or any other offence of which cognizance could be taken. The learned Judicial Magistrate assigning reasons, came to the conclusion that the complaint was liable to be dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C., without issuing any process to the respondents, as no prima facie case was made out against the respondents. 6. Though the revision petitioner has chosen to challenge the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, dated 15.07.2013, during the pendency of this revision, the revision petitioner has chosen to enter into a settlement with the respondents which resulted in the submission of a joint memo, dated 31.07.2014. 7. All other offences alleged, except the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, are compoundable. So far as the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the SC & ST Act is concerned, as pointed out supra, necessary averments have not been made to make out a prima facie case. There is not even an averment that the insult was made by a person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the person on whom insult was made was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Certificates, showing the communities of the revision petitioner and the respondents, have not been produced. There is not even an averment that the insult was made by a person not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the person on whom insult was made was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Certificates, showing the communities of the revision petitioner and the respondents, have not been produced. Hence, the mere fact that the offence under Section 3(1) (X) of the SC & ST Act is non compoundable will not come in the way of accepting the joint memo and dismissing the Criminal Revision Case as not pressed, because no prima facie material attracting the said penal provision has been produced, besides there being absence of necessary averment. 8. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that it shall be in the interest of justice to accept the joint memo, dated 31.07.2014 and dismiss the Criminal Revision Case as not pressed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.