Allowed

Rajeswaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2023Crl.MC/3839/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Judge held that the allegations did not clearly disclose an offence and that continuing the proceedings was an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018 allowed; proceedings in S.C No.147/2018 before the Special Court quashed.

Rajeswaran Nair Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 3839 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT SC 147/2018 OF SPECIAL COURT

¶7

(ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANANTHAVADI

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 RAJESWARAN NAIR

¶10

S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, WORKING AS SENIOR CLERK,
O/O.WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILDLIFE DIVISION,
SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592.

¶11

2SUJIL P.
S/O. SURENDRAN, WORKING AS CLERK,
O/O.WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILDLIFE DIVISION,
SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592.

¶12

3NIDHIN N.H.
S/O. HARIDAS, WORKING AS TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE,
O/O.WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILDLIFE DIVISION,
SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592.

¶13

BY ADV

¶14

SRI.M.P.PRAKASH

¶15

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

2 RASHEENA

¶18

W/O. MOHANDAS M.R., U.D.TYPIST,
O/O. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
NORTH WAYANAD DIVISION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD.
PIN-671 121.

¶19

BY ADVS.

¶20

SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S(FOR R1 AND R2)
SRI.NOUSHAD K.A-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶22

19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2023

¶27

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.138/2018 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station, Wayanad District, which is now pending as S.C No.147/2018 before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1989 Act’). Crime No.138/2018 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station was registered on the basis of a complaint made by the 2^nd respondent.

¶28

The 2^nd respondent was working as a U.D Typist in the office of the Wildlife Warden, Wayanad Division. The 2^nd respondent and petitioners 1 and 2 were occupying adjacent Government quarters for more than two years. By Annexure-A3 proceedings of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle, Kannur, the 2^nd respondent was transferred to North Wayanad Division

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

and she was relieved on 25.05.2017. However, the 2^nd respondent sought for continuing in the quarters allotted to her.

¶32

There were proceedings initiated at the instances of the 2^nd respondent before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram District,

¶33

which culminated in Annexure-A7 order dated 17.10.2017 in O.A No.1853/2017, wherein the representation given by the 2^nd respondent (Annexure-A17) was directed to be considered by the Government.

¶34

It appears that a state level sports meet for employees of the Forest Department was held on 09.11.2017. According to the 2^nd respondent, on 09.11.2017, the petitioners who were interested to get the Government quarters occupied by the 2^nd respondent, had abused the 2^nd respondent and called her by her caste name and also threatened the 2^nd respondent by stating that neither she nor her husband

¶35

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

[who was working in the office of the District Superintendent of Police] could do anything against the petitioners. It is alleged that by the aforesaid acts the petitioners have committed the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶38

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the initiation of proceedings and the culmination of the investigation by filing a Final Report, which has been taken on file as S.C.No.147/2018 before the Special Court for Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is submitted that even according to the complaint of the 2^nd respondent/ de-facto complainant, there were some disputes regarding the vacation of quarters by the 2^nd respondent, following her transfer from Wayanad on 25.07.2017. It is submitted that the documents produced along with the Crl.M.C

¶39

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶40

: 5 :

¶41

would indicate that there were proceedings before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal regarding the transfer of the 2^nd respondent, a reading of which also suggests that apart from challenging the order of transfer, the 2^nd respondent also wanted to continue in the Government quarters allotted to her. It is submitted that a reading of the complaint in writing given by the 2^nd respondent suggest that even according to the 2^nd respondent/ de-facto complainant the dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant were on account of the fact that the 1^st petitioner had issued a notice (in discharge of his official duties) to the 2^nd respondent calling upon her to vacate the staff quarters occupied by her, following her transfer referred to above. It is submitted that the husband of the 2^nd respondent is a staff attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Wayanad and he had threatened the petitioners that they would be implicated in some criminal cases unless they withdraw from attempts to get the Government quarters occupied

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶43

: 6 :

¶44

by the 2^nd respondent vacated. It is submitted that there was a substantial delay in filing the complaint. It is submitted that though the incident is stated to have occurred on 09.11.2017, the complaint was filed before the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission only on 24.11.2017, which ultimately led to the registration of the FIR on 01.03.2018. It is submitted that the allegation in the complaint of the 2^nd respondent is that the petitioners were in an inebriated condition while abusing the 2^nd respondent as above. It is submitted that since there was no attempt to have a medical examination of the petitioners on 09.11.2017, the petitioners have even lost their chance to prove that they were not in an inebriated condition on 09.11.2017. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted as true, no offence under the 1989 Act has been made out. It is submitted that the proceedings against the petitioners are clearly an abuse of process of law and therefore, this Court in exercise of Jurisdiction

¶45

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶46

: 7 :

¶47

under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be justified in quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶48

The learned Counsel appearing before the 2^nd respondent vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations in the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent clearly indicate that the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of 1989 Act are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the attempt of the learned Counsel for the petitioners to project that the filing of complaint is an abuse of process of law and only intended to prejudice the petitioners for having required the 2^nd respondent to vacate the quarter, cannot be accepted, even for a moment. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent was constrained to approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal as the transfer of the 2^nd respondent was against the norms and the attempt to evict the 2^nd respondent from staff quarters was also against the law. It is submitted that the fact that the

¶49

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶50

: 8 :

¶51

husband of the 2^nd respondent is a staff of the office of Superintendent of Police, Wayanad, is no ground to hold that the proceedings against the petitioners were mala fide and were taken only because they had been instrumental in requiring the 2^nd respondent to vacate the quarter. It is submitted that the contentions taken for the petitioners by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are purely matters for evidence and it is not appropriate for this Court to exercise Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent also contended that the ground taken in the memorandum of Crl.M.C. that a preliminary enquiry had not been conducted as required by the judgment of Supreme Court in Dr.Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2018) 6 SCC 454 cannot any longer been pressed into service as the said judgment had been recalled in the judgment Union of India v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2019) 5

¶52

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶53

: 9 :

¶54

KHC 57, following the amendments to the 1989 Act and by the insertion of Section 18A into the provisions of the Act.

¶55

The learned Senior Public Prosecutor referred

¶56

to the First Information Statement and also the Final Report to state that going by the First Information Report and the Final Report, the petitioners have clearly committed the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that there is no ground made out for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶57

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. A reading of the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent indicates that the incident alleged against the petitioners took place on 09.11.2017. There is no real explanation in the complaint as to why the 2^nd respondent has waited till 24.11.2017 to forward a complaint to the Scheduled Castes and

¶58

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶59

: 10 :

¶60

Scheduled Tribes Commission alleging that the petitioners had committed the offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the 1989 Act. That apart, there is clear indication in the complaint forwarded by the 2^nd respondent that there were some pre-existing disputes regarding the vacation of Government quarters by the 2^nd respondent and in respect of which the 1^st petitioner had issued certain notices to the 2^nd respondent. Cumulatively, the allegations against the petitioners and the aforesaid facts leads me to conclude that there is merit in the contention taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the continuance of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The allegation of the 2^nd respondent in the complaint filed by her is as follows:-

¶61

"സംസ്ഥാനവനംകായികമേ�ള 2017 - 09 .11. 2017 ന് സർക്കിൾതലസെസക്ഷൻട്രയൽസുൽത്താൻബമേത്തരിയിൽസെവച ് നടത്തിയിരുന്ന മേവളയിൽ മേനാർത ് വയനാട് ഡിവിഷനിസെല പ്രതിനിധീകരിച്ചുസ്റ്റാഫായഞാനുംപസെ+ടുത്തിരുന്നു. ഉച്ചയ ് ക്കഒരു�ണിക ് ഞാനും �റ ് ഡിവിഷനുകളിസെല സ്റ്റാഫുകളും ഒരു�ിച്ചു ഭക്ഷണം കഴിച്ചുസെകാണ്ടിരിക്കുമേ9ാൾവയനാട്വൈവൽഡ്വൈലഫ്ഡിവിഷനിസെല സീനിയർക്ലർക്കായശ്രീ .രാമേ=ശ്വരൻനായർഎൻ ., ശ്രീ .സു=ിൽ പി., ക്ലാർക ് ക , ശ്രീ .നിതിൻ, ഡ്രാഫ ് റ്റ‌സ്�ാൻ (ദിവസക്കൂലി ) എന്നിവർ

¶62

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶63

: 11 :

¶64

മേFർന ് �ദ്യപിച ് പാരിസരമേബാധ�ില്ലാസെത എസെI ഭർത്താവിസെനയും എസെന്നയും�റ ് സ്റ്റാഫുകളുസെടമു9ിൽസെവച ് ചഅസഭ്യംപറയുകയുംഒരു മേ�ാഹനൻ, സി.പി.ഐ. മേനതാവ്അ9ലവയൽ, വയനാട്വൈവൽഡ് വൈലഫ് ഡിവിഷസെനതിസെര പരാതി സെകാടുത്തിട്ടുസെണ്ടന്നും പരാതി സെകാടുത് ത എസെI ഭർത്താവായ മേ�ാഹൻദാസ് ആസെണന്നും പരാതിയിൽശരിക്കുമുള്ളമേപരുസെവക്കാത്തവൻഅവസെI =ാതിസ്വഭാവം ഈ പരാതിയിൽ പറയാൻ കാണിച്ചതാസെണന്നും എനിക ് പറ്റാത്ത തരത്തിലുള്ള സംസ്കാര�ില്ലാത്ത വാക് ക ുൾ പറഞ ് എസെI �നസികാവസ്ഥസെയയും എസെI വ്യക്തിത്വസെത്തയും പരിഹസിക്കുന്ന രീതിയിൽസംസാരിക് ക ുയുണ്ടായി, ഇനിവയനാട്വൈവൽഡ്വൈലഫ് ഡിവിഷനിൽഒരുഅധകൃതവർഗ്ഗക്കാരിസെയവൈടപ്പിസ്റ്റായിനിയ�ിക്കാൻ ഞങ്ങൾസമ്മതിക് ക ുയില്ലാസെയന്നുംഈപരാതിഅയച്ചമേ�ാഹനൻ വിFാരിച്ചാൽഞങ്ങസെളഒന്നുംസെFയ്യാൻപറ്റുകയില്ലാസെയന ് നഞങ്ങമേളാട് ഞങ്ങളുസെട ഡി.എഫ്.ഒ സാ=ൻ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുസെണ്ടന്നും, ഒരു പട്ടിക=ാതിക്കാരനായമേ�ാഹനൻഅ9ലവയൽവിFാരിച്ചാൽഒന്നും ഈ പരാതിയിൽ സെFയ്യാൻ കഴിയില്ലാസെയന്നും എനിക ് എഴുതാൻ കഴിയാത്തവിധത്തിലുള്ള അസഭ്യ വാക് ക ുൾ എസെI ഭർത്താവിസെനപ്പറ്റിയും എസെന്നപ്പറ്റിയും ഇവർ മൂന്നുമേപരും അവിസെട ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നവരുസെടമു9ിൽസെവച ് ചപറയുകയുണ്ടായി. ഇവർമൂന്നുമേപരും പറയുന്ന പരാതി 03.11.2017 ന് ബഹു.ഫ്ളയിഗ് സ്‌ക്വാഡ് സെറയ്ഞ ് മേഫാറസ്ററ് ഓഫീസർ, കൽപ്പറ്റഎസെന്നകാണിക് ക ുയും ഞാൻഅതിന്�റുപടിസെ�ാഴിഎഴുതിസെകാടുക് ക ുയുംസെFയ് ത ാണ്. ഈ പരാതിയിൽപറയുന്നമേ�ാഹനൻഅ9ലവയൽഎന്നയാൾഎസെI ഭർത്താവല്ല. എസെI ഭർത്താവ്ഇങ്ങിസെനഒരുപരാതിഎഴുതിയിട്ടില്ല. എസെI ഭർത്താവിസെI മേപര് മേ�ാഹൻദാസ് എം.ആർ.,കൃഷ്ണ�ന്ദിരം, അ9ലവയൽ എന്നാണ്. ഇവർ ഒരുപാട് പ്രാവശ്യം എസെI ഭർത്താവിസെന അസഭ്യവാക് ക ുൾ പറയുകയുണ്ടായി. മൂന്നു മേപരും �ദ്യലഹരിയിലായിരുന്നു. ് ്

¶65

മേനാർത ് വയനാട് ഡിവിഷസെന പ്രതിനിധികരിച ് കായികമേ�ളയിൽപസെ+ടുക്കുവാൻവന്ന=ീവനക്കാരിയായഎസെന്ന�റ്റുള്ള ഡിവിഷനിസെലയും �റ്റു =ില്ലകളിസെലയും =ീവനക്കാരുസെട മു9ിൽ സെവച ് അധിമേക്ഷപിച്ചുസംസാരിച്ചതുംഎസെI =ാതിമേപ്പര്വിളിച ് ചഅധിമേക്ഷപിച്ചതും എസെന്നമേ�ാശക്കാരിയായിFിത്രീകരിക് ക ുയുംസെFയ്തിരിക് ക ുയാണ്. ഇത് എസെന്ന �ാനസിക�ായും ശാരീരിക�ായും തളർത്തിയിരിക് ക ുയാണ്. ഞാൻവയനാട്വൈവൽഡ്വൈലഫ്ഡിവിഷനിൽനിന ് നസ്ഥലം�ാറി മേപായതിനുമേശഷംഞാൻഇമേപ്പാൾതാ�സിക്കുന്നവയനാട്വൈവൽഡ്

¶66

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶67

: 12 :

¶68

വൈലഫ് ഡിവിഷനു കീഴിലുള്ള ഡിപ്പാർട്സെ�I് ക്വാർമേട്ടഴ്‌സ് ഒഴിയുന്നതിനുള്ള മേനാട്ടീസ് തരുകയും ഞാൻ ഇതിസെനതിസെര ബഹു.അഡ്മിനിസ്‌മേട്രറ്റീവ്ട്രിബ്യുണലിസെനസ�ീപിക് ക ുയുംസെFയ്‌തിരുന്നു. ഈകാരണംസെകാണ ് ടക്വാർമേട്ടഴ്‌സിസെI സെസക്ഷൻവൈകകാര്യംസെFയ്യുന്ന സെസക്ഷൻ ക്ലാർക്കായ ശ്രീ.രാമേ=ശ്വരൻ നായർക ് എമേന്നാട് വ്യക്തിപര�ായവിമേദ്വഷംഉണ ് ട. ആയതുസെകാണ്ടാണ്‌ ഇവർമൂവരും മേFർന ് �ദ്യലഹരിയിൽ എസെI മു9ിൽ വന ് അധിമേക്ഷപിച്ചു സംസാരിച്ചത്.

¶69

മേ=ാലി സ്ഥലത്തും സെപാതുസ്ഥലങ്ങളിലും സ്ത്രീ =ീവനക്കാസെര അധിമേക്ഷപിക് ക ുയും അവമേരാട് മേ�ാശ�ായി സെപരു�ാറുകയും സെFയ്‌തിട്ടുസെണ്ട+ിൽ അവർസെക്കതിസെര ശക്ത�ായ നടപടികൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുവാൻഗവൺസെ�I്തലത്തിൽഉത്തരവുകൾഉള്ളസ്ഥിതിക ് ക‌ ഈകാര്യത്തിൽമേ�ൽപറഞ്ഞവ്യക്തികൾസെക്കതിസെരനിയ�നടപടികൾ

¶70

സ്വീകരിക്കുവാൻവിനീത�ായിഅമേപക്ഷിക്കുന്നു.”

¶71

It is difficult to hold that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act has been committed. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act, is attracted only if there is an intentional insult or intimidation with the intent of humiliating a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. After reading the complaint, I am unable to hold that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the 1989 Act has been committed by the petitioners. The provisions of Section 3(1)(s) indicate that mere abuse of the member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by caste name in any place within public view would attract the offence

¶72

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶73

: 13 :

¶74

under that provisions. Reading of complaint (which forms in part Annexure–A12 FIR) would indicate that even according to the 2^nd respondent the petitioners had not called out her by her caste name. The statement in the Final Report that the petitioners had abused the de-facto complainant by the calling caste name appears to run directly counter to the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent, which does not indicate that such caste name was called out by the petitioners.

¶75

Therefore the Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in S.C No.147/2018 before the Special Court (SC/ST), Mananthavady stands quashed.

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶78

AMR

¶79

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶80

: 14 :

¶81

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3839/2018

¶82

PETITIONERS’ ANNEXURES

¶83

`ANNEXURE 1`	`A TRUE COPY OF`	`THE`	`LOCATION SKETCH.`
`ANNEXURE 2`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `23.01.2014 OF`	`THE` `THE`	`LETTER DATED` `2ND PETITIONER.`
`ANNEXURE 3`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `24.05.2017 OF` `CIRCLE.`	`THE` `THE`	`PROCEEDINGS DATED` `CCF, NORTHERN`
`ANNEXURE 4`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `25.05.2017 OF` `WAYANAD.`	`THE` `THE`	`LETTER DATED` `WILDLIFE WARDEN,`
`ANNEXURE 5`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `19.08.2017 OF` `WAYANAD.`	`THE` `THE`	`NOTICE DATED` `WILDLIFE WARDEN,`
`ANNEXURE 6`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `15.09.2017 OF` `WAYANAD.`	`THE` `THE`	`LETTER DATED` `WILDLIFE WARDEN,`
`ANNEXURE 7`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `17.10.2017 OF` `TRIBUNAL.`	`THE` `KERA`	`ORDER DATED` `LA ADMINISTRATIVE`
`ANNEXURE 8 SERI`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `REGARDING THE` `ASSOCIATION.`	`THE` `MEET`	`NEWS PAPER REPORTS` `ING ON NGO`
`ANNEXURE 9`	`A TRUE COPY OF` `03.11.2017 OF` `WAYANAD, DEPUT`	`THE` `THE` `ING`	`LETTER DATED` `WILDLIFE WARDEN,` `STAFF.`

¶84

ANNEXURE 10A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
03.11.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,
WAYANAD SEEKING MEDICAL TEAM.

¶85

Crl.M.C. No.3839 of 2018

¶86

: 15 :

¶87

ANNEXURE 11A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
03.11.2017 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,
WAYANAD, SEEKING SPORTS PERSONNEL.
ANNEXURE 12A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
138/2018 OF THE SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE
STATION.
ANNEXURE 13A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
CRIME NO. 138/2018 OF THE SULTHAN
BATHERY POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 14A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
06.04.2018 OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,
WAYANAD ADDRESSED TO THE INVESTIGATING
OFFICER.

Rajeswaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeswaran Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurunnan Divakaran Vs Kurunnan Vimala

Vipin.v.B. @ Vinil Vs State of Kerala

Rajeshkumar @ Giri Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Varghese Vs Chinnamma Mathan

Venu Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Kottarakara Unit ( REG.NO.262/81) Vs Kottarakara Taluk Vyapara Vyavasayi Co-Operative Society Ltd, NO.Q1516,KOTTARAKARA