IMPORTANT POINT
Presumption as to offences – Where accused was having personal knowledge on victim or his family, Court shall presume that accused was aware of caste or tribal identity of victim, unless contrary is proved.

JUDGMENT

The complainant in Annexure A4 complaint (CMP No.550 of 2024), wherefrom Crime No.974 of 2024 has been registered by Irinjalakuda Police, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) as well as Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (for short ‘the SC & ST (PoA) Act’) has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 14A of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, challenging Annexure A9 order in Crl.M.P.No.1160 of 2024 dated 26.08.2025, whereby the learned Special Court under the SC & ST (PoA) Act, dismissed an application filed by the appellant to monitor the investigation.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor for and on behalf of the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/accused in detail. Perused the order impugned and the records available.

3. Precisely, the prosecution case is that O.S.No.795 of 2023 was filed by the accused persons on production of a promissory note alleged to have been one executed by the defacto complainant as well as his father as the suit document. When the defacto complainant and his father, who were defendants in the suit, filed written statement contending that the above promissory note was a forged document, the plaintiffs, the kuri company and its authorised officer (accused) immediately withdrawn the suit. It is on this background this crime was registered.

4. During investigation of the crime, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Irinjalakuda, filed a report on 22.10.2024 and as per which, he had requested the Special Court to delete offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act and the reasons for filing such a report was that O.S.No.795 of 2023 had been filed by the kuri company without knowing the caste identity of the defacto complainant, as the investigation so revealed. It is at this juncture, the present application, which led to passing of Annexure A9 order, had been filed by the complainant seeking investigation to be monitored by the Special Court.

5. In paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of Annexure A9 order, the learned Special Judge observed as under;

“10. Here the prosecution has filed a report that the accused persons had no knowledge regarding the caste of the petitioners. Apart from that the transaction would indicate that the accused had no criminal intention to grab anything, misutilising the status of the defacto compliant and his relatives. It may be true that the accused have instituted suit before the Munsif Court. Subsequently, it appears from the petition that the said suit was withdrawn by the petitioner. It does not indicate that a prima facie case that the accused had instituted a false, malicious or vexatious suit against the petitioners in the status of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe. Likewise, there is no prima facie materials to show that the accused have given any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

11. Hence considering the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, there is no impediment to transfer the case records to Judicial First Class Magistrate, Irinjalakuda. The petition filed by the petitioner became infructuous.”

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even though no specific order has been passed by the Special Judge accepting Annexure A6 report, going by the finding of the Special Court in paragraph No.11 of the impugned order, holding the view that there had been no impediment to transfer the case records to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda, Annexure A6 deemed to have been accepted by the Special Judge on affirming the view that offences under Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) A