Dismissed

K.Ka.Rajarajan v. the State Rep.by

Madras HC26 Oct 2021CRL OP/2282/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR alleging offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the amended SC and ST Act. The court held that basic materials existed to make out a case and investigation was required to ascertain the nature of the place of occurrence.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the FIR was dismissed and connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

K.Ka.Rajarajan Vs the State Rep.by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO.2282 OF 2019 AND CRL.M.P.NO.1509 OF 2019

¶6

K.Ka.Rajarajan ...Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The State rep.by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karumathampatti Sub Division, Coimbatore District,

¶9

Crime No.412 of 2018.

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Crime No.412 of 2018, Coimbatore District.

¶11

Raman ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer:

¶13

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.412 of 2018 on the file of the 2^nd respondent police, quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran

¶15

For Respondents: Mrs.G.V.Kasthuri

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2

¶17

No appearance for R3

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to call for the records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.412 of 2018 on the file of the 2^nd respondent police and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence under Sections 294 (b), 324 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST Act; the third respondent's son by name Manikandan has committed theft of a goat from the land of one Nanjappa Gounder on 20.08.2018. He has further submitted that after knowing the said fact, Nanjappa Gounder and Ponnusamy enquired Manikandan and he has admitted his guilt and his father/3^rd respondent requested to pardon his son; the goat was also handed over to the petitioner and hence, he did not give any complaint in this regard; since there was a continuous cattle theft, Nanjappa Gounder gave a complaint to the second respondent/Police on 05.09.2018 and in which, FIR has been registered in Crime No.413 of 2018 against the son of the 3^rd respondent for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C; the third respondent has given a false complaint on 05.09.2018 as a counter blast to the above said F.I.R registered against his son; the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent; it is further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the occurrence does not seem to have occurred in public view; section 3 (1) (x) of the amended SC and ST Act stipulates that in order to charge a person under the said provision he ought to have intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; since there is no allegation to that effect, no prima facie material available to make out a case against the petitioner; further the F.I.R has been given after a delay of 15 days from the alleged occurrence.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the decisions in the case of Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2011) 11 SCC 259 and in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, in support of his above contentions.

¶23

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the statement of the witnesses would show that the occurrence had taken place only in the public view; there are prima facie materials available on records; as per the decision reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 an order to quash the proceedings should be passed only in rarest of the rare cases.

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

On perusal of the complaint given by third respondent, it is seen that he has made the following allegations against the petitioner:

¶26

”fle;j 20/08/2018 md;W Fkhh;ft [z ;ld ; vd;gth; vdJ kfd; nuhl;oy ; brd;W bfhz;oUe;j nghJ vdJ kfid miHj;Jr ; brd;W ,ut[ 7/00 kzpastpy; uh$uh$d; vd;gth; njhl;lj ;jpw;F Tl;or ;brd;W tpf;ndt&;. uh$uh$d;. Fkhh;ft [z ;lh ; Mfpnahh; Vd;lh. rf;fpyp jhnahyp ML jpUoaJ ePjhnd vd;W brhy;yp moj;J cijj;jhh;fs;/ ,Uk;g [ igg;ghy; moj;J vdJ kfid kaf;f epiyapy; 108 Mk;g [yd ; ;! ; K:yk ; nfhit muR kUj;Jtkidapy; nrh;j ;njhk;/ fle;j 8 ehl;fshf rpfpr;ir bgw;W tPL jpUk;gp tpl;lepiyapy; rhjpia brhy;yp ,Uk;g [ igg;ghy; moj;J bfhiy bra;a Kad;w uh$uh$d. tpf;ndt&;. Fkhh;ft [z ;lh ; Mfpnahh; kPJ SC/ST td;bfhLikia rl;lj ;jpy; fPH; chpa eltof;if ntz;Lk ; vd j';fis kpft[k ; jhH;ika [ld ; nfl;Lf ;bfhs;fpnwd;/”

¶27

It is true that there is no allegation as to the specific nature of the place of occurrence. It is alleged that the occurrence had taken place at the garden of the petitioner. However, the F.I.R is not an encyclopaedia. The Police seems to have registered this case by ascertaining the caste of the complainant and the accused. It is correct that in the citations relied on by the petitioner, it is laid down that if the occurrence had not taken place in the public view, a person cannot be charged for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST Act. The matter is pending for the investigation, it is the duty of the Investigation Officer to find out whether the place of occurrence is a private place or it is in public view. So it has to be ascertained whether the place of occurrence is in the vicinity of any other person other than the complainant and the accused. These facts can be established only if the investigation is allowed to go on. The point now raised by the petitioner can very well serve as his defence, if the police files a charge-sheet without establishing the nature of the place of occurrence. The records which are available as of now, would show that there are basic materials to make out a case.

¶28

In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Pns

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

To:

¶35

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karumathampatti Sub Division, Coimbatore District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Coimbatore District. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶36

+1cc to Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, S.R.No.55329

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.2282 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.1509 of 2019

¶38

AD(CO) PM/24/11/2021

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Ka.Rajarajan v. the State Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ka.Rajarajan v. the State Rep.by

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

Vijayakumar Mathangi Vs M/S.D.S.a.Motors

R.Maheswari Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

R.Hema Vs the State Rep by Its

Vijay Vs State by

P.Manimegalai Vs N.Senthilkumar

Bhuvaneshwari Vs State Represented by