JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 09.11.2022 made in C.M.P.No.880 of 2022 in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.) 1. Challenging the impugned order dated 09.11.2022 passed in C.M.P.No.880 of 2022 in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2022 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, the present criminal revision case is filed. 2. The fact of the case is that the petitioner is an accused in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur. The petitioner was working as Principal in AVP College of Arts and Science College, Chettipalayam, Thirumuguran Poondi, Tiruppur. There is a dispute between the petitioner and the management. The petitioner had filed many writ petitions against the management with regard to the salary and removal from service. The management also filed a complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner in FIR No. 421 of 2021 and this petitioner also gave a complaint, a case has been registered in FIR No.422 of 2021. 3. In the present case, based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the respondent police registered a case against this petitioner in Crime No.1272 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 on 29.06.2021. The respondent police, after investigation, filed the final report under Sections 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 r/w under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, which is taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.02 of 2022. In the present case, in the alleged FIR No.1272 of 2021, the alleged incident had taken place in three different dates i.e. 31.12.2020, 02.03.2021 and 30.04.2021. Since the petitioner has not committed any offence as stated by the defacto complainant and the complaint being a false complaint, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.880 of 2022 to discharging him from the criminal proceedings. The trial Court dismissed the petition as there is a prima facie case and full fledged trial is required to go into details of the fact alleged by the petitioner/accused, which is under chellange. 4. The trial Court dismissed the petition as there is a prima facie case and full fledged trial is required to go into details of the fact alleged by the petitioner/accused, which is under chellange. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent police had registered the FIR initially for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 on 29.06.2021. Subsequently, at the instigation of the management getting further statement from the defacto complainant, included the offences under Sections 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. There was no crime committed by the petitioner as stated by the defacto complainant. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8304 of 2021 against the relieving order issued by the management and thereafter, they reached compromise. In order to punish the petitioner, the management influenced the defacto complainant to file this false complaint on 29.06.2021 for the incident took place on 31.12.2020. Further, in the complaint, it is stated that the incident took place at the principal room and the principal room is not a public place. Therefore, no offence is committed under SC/ST Act. The petitioner has not used any words abusing the defacto complainant’s caste and the initial complaint did not contain any allegation. It is only a subsequent development. The statements are prepared by the police in the police station. There is no material to show any offence committed by the petitioner for framing a charge. There is no prima facie material to proceed against him, hence, the impugned order has to be set aside and the petitioner has to be discharged from the criminal proceedings. 5. The learned Govt.Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first and second respondents supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court and pleaded that there is no merit in the criminal revision case. Prima facie, there is a material on record to proceed against the petitioner/accused. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and pleaded to dismiss the criminal revision case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt.Advocate (crl.side) for first and second respondents. 7. Prima facie, there is a material on record to proceed against the petitioner/accused. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and pleaded to dismiss the criminal revision case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt.Advocate (crl.side) for first and second respondents. 7. I have gone through the materials available on record and in the first complaint by the defacto complainant to the respondent police on 29.06.2021, there is no allegation of mentioning the defacto complainant’s caste and abused with filthy languages. On receiving the complaint, a case has been initially registered in Crime No.1272 of 2021 under Sections 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the management and the petitioner, who is Principal in the abovesaid management College. This defacto complainant Ilakiya is working as Assistant Professor in English Department and there is a dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant Ilakiya with regard to her duty in the college. Under these circumstance, in the complaint, the complainant narrated the incident took place on 31.12.2020, 02.03.2021 and 30.04.2021 in these three days and there is no averment in the complaint that the petitioner/accused abused her caste and insulted the defacto complainant on the basis of her caste. To appreciate the contents in the complaint for the incident took place on 30.04.2021, it is reproduced here; 8. Under these circumstances, the further statement of the defacto complainant with regard to insulting her by her caste name seems to be a malafide one. The Hon''ble supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in ( (1992) SCC Crl. 426) settled the principle that to quash the FIR, the malafide complaint is one of the ground. If any complaint is given to prove with malafide intention, it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings. 9. In this case, the charge under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 is added with malafide intention by the respondent police on recording the further statement of the defacto complainant. The trial Court failed to consider the case properly. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside. 9. In this case, the charge under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 is added with malafide intention by the respondent police on recording the further statement of the defacto complainant. The trial Court failed to consider the case properly. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the charge under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 is hereby set aside and the trial Court may proceed with regard to the other charges under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the petitioner/accused and dispose on merit. In view of the above direction, the criminal revision case is partly allowed.