Andiyappan @ Mani vs The Superintendent of Police, The Deputy Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police

The Petitioner has approached this Court to direct the first Respondent to ensure that the accused are properly charged for an offences under

Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and other relevant provisions by the

able and competent investigating officer as contemplated under the Rules framed under the said Act.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has purchased the property comprised in S.F. No. 342/5, Punjai

0.07.0 ares from one Sevathamani on 12.08.2009 by a registered sale deed for valid consideration and patta is also transferred in his name and he

is in possession and enjoyment of the property. On 26.10.2009, when he went to plough the above said field, the accused unlawfully prevented the

Petitioner and also assaulted the Petitioner and his mother and also defamed the community, for which, a criminal case has been registered against

the accused in Vaiyampatty Police Station in Crime No. 580 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 294(b) and

3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and it is stated that the second Respondent, without

enquiring the Petitioner, proceeded the investigation and remanded the accused by deleting the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in order to facilitate the accused to come out on bail easily.

He would further submit that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the matter in proper manner and he has not considered the complaint

as well as the statement of the Petitioner and other witnesses, recorded u/s 161(3) Code of Criminal Procedure The Petitioner herein has earlier

filed Crl. O.P. (MD). No. 11353 of 2009, to direct the first Respondent to ensure that the accused are properly charged for the offences u/s 3(1)

(v) and 3(1)(x) of the said Act and other relevant provisions in Crime No. 580 of 2009 on the file of the third Respondent by the able and

competent investigating Officer as contemplated under the said Act. It is stated further by the Petitioner that the Respondents have informed the

Court that the charge sheet has been filed in this case and hence, the Petitioner was directed to approach the Court concerned and file necessary

application. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed copy application on 18.01.2010 before the learned Judicial Magistrate''s Court, Manapparai and the

same had been returned on 25.01.2010 stating that the charge sheet had not been filed in this case. Hence, the Respondents have given a false

representation before this Court and therefore, the Petitioner has come forward with this application for the aforesaid prayer.

Heard both sides and perused the files received from the concerned Magistrate.

On a perusal of the FIR, it is seen that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 26.10.2009 at about 14 hours and the complaint has

been registered on 27.10.2009 at about 17.30 hours in Crime No. 580 of 2009 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 294(b) and 3(i)(x) of the

said Act, against five named persons. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed on 08.02.2010 and presented before the concerned

Court on 16.02.2010 under the provisions of law, i.e. under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 294(b) of IPC.

At this juncture, it is appropriate on the part of this Court to decide whether prima-facie has been made out under the provisions of Sections 3(i)

(x) and 3(1)(v) of the said Act. The Petitioner herein has filed the sale deed in his favour, as seen from page No. 15 of the additional typed set of

papers filed along with this petition. The date of sale deed is 12.08.2009 and patta has also been changed in his name i.e., it finds place in page 23

of the additional typed set of papers. The alleged occurrence has been taken place on 26.10.2009 and the complaint has been given on

27.10.2009 and the copy of the complaint find place in page 27 of the additional typed set of papers and FIR finds place in page 1 of the

additional typed set of papers and the remand report finds place in page 9 therein, which shows that the accused was first remanded on

28.10.2009 and in the remand report, the offences were stated to be only under Sections 147, 323, 324 and 294(b) of IPC. Even though a case

has been registered along with the provisions under Sections 3(1)(x) of the said Act, at the time of remand, the investigating agency gave the

altered report and the accused were remanded upto 11.11.2009.

In this regard, it is appropriate to extract Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act, as follows:

Section 3: Punishments for offences of atrocities.--(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--

(i) ...

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

(xi) ...

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.

While considering the above Section along with the complaint, the FIR and the statement of the Petitioner-complainant and his mother

Nallammal recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure , it is seen that a prima-facie case has been made out and the ingredients of Section 3(1)

(x) of the said Act, are complied with. The occurrence has taken place in the filed (land) and so, it is to be construed as a public place, view to

public. Even though the Petitioner complainant and his mother have mentioned the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act, the investigating

agency has filed the charge sheet only under the provisions of the IPC and not under the provisions of the said Act, even though at the earlier point

of time, the complaint has been registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 294(b) and Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act. Hence,

I am of the view that prima-facie, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the said Act have been made out.

Now, this Court has to decide as to whether the ingredients of Section 3(1)(v) of the said Act has been made out. It is worthwhile to quote

Section 3(1)(v) of the Act as under:

Section 3: Punishments for offences of atrocities.--(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--

(i) ...

(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his

rights over any land, premises or water;''

(vi) ...

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.

There is no evidence to show that the Petitioner was dispossessed from his land or premises and interfered with the enjoyment of his right over

any land or premises. So, I am of the view that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(v) of the said Act, are not made out and the ingredients of Section

3(1)(x) of the said Act, alone have been made out. Therefore, it is a fit case to direct the second Respondent to take up the case and investigate

the case afresh on the basis of the complaint given by the Petitioner and file the additional charge sheet in accordance with law. Accordingly, there

will be a direction to the second Respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy, to take up the case and investigate

the case afresh on the basis of the complaint given by the Petitioner and file the additional charge sheet in accordance with law.

With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.