Back
2016 Supreme(Ker) 1393
High Court of Kerala
Sunil Thomas, J.
Johnson T T - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.M.C. No. 4270 of 2016
Decided On : 21-10-2016
The necessity of specific allegations regarding caste, the act being done in public view, and the intention to insult or humiliate based on caste for the applicability of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Headnote:
SC/ST (POA) Act - Quashing of Proceedings - Summary: The court considered the allegations of abuse based on caste name and harassment by the accused against the complainant. The court analyzed the legal provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act and the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the requirement of specific allegations regarding caste, the act being done in public view, and the intention to insult or humiliate based on caste. The court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations and the incidents indicated a friction between landlord and tenant rather than caste-based abuse, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The accused filed a petition to quash the proceedings for offences under SC/ST (POA) Act and IPC, based on the allegation of abusing the complainant by calling her caste name and harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations regarding caste, the incidents indicated a friction between landlord and tenant rather than caste-based abuse, and the accused had let out his own house to a member of scheduled caste, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Issues: Allegations of abuse based on caste name, harassment by the accused, and the applicability of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The requirement of specific allegations regarding caste, the act being done in public view, and the intention to insult or humiliate based on caste were emphasized by the court.
Final Decision: The Crl.M.C was allowed, and all further proceedings arising from the case were quashed.
Sunil Thomas, J.
1. This petition is filed by the sole accused in Crime No.326 of 2016 of Eloor Police Station for offences punishable under section 3(1)x of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The allegation of the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant is that on 20.12.2016, the accused abused her by calling her caste name. Complaint was lodged by her and crime was registered. Investigation is progressing. Contending that even the admitted facts do not reveal the ingredients of any offence, much less an offence under section 3(1)X of SC/ST (POA) Act andsection 354 of IPC, accused has approached this Court to quash the proceedings.
3. Heard both sides and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Admittedly the accused is the landlord and the complainant and her husband are residing in a building let out by the accused. In yet another building in the same compound, landlord is residing with family. Adjoining building is also let out to another tenant. According to the de facto complainant, the accused and his wife were in the habit of picking up quarrel with tenants on trivial issues, to compel them to vacate the building without claiming the advance paid. Accused had on several occasions abused and harassed the complainant and her husband.
5. The learned counsel for the accused contended that one of the main ingredient of an offence under scheduled caste or tribe (POA) Act is that the de facto complainant should belong to SC/ST caste and the accused should belong to a non SC/ST. According to the counsel, this should be alleged in the complaint. In the present case, the FI statement of the de facto complainant does not state that the accused belong to a caste other than SC/ST. The Honourable Supreme Court in Gorige Pentalah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008(12) SCC 531) has held that in the absence of a specific allegation that the accused belong to a caste other than SC/ST, an offence under SC/ST (POA) Act is not sustainable. This was reiterated by the Kerala High Court in V.S.Sulochanan and Others v. State of Kerala (2012 KHC 2975).
6. Yet another contention was that the act should be done in public view. According to the counsel, even according to the complainant, the accused abused her on 20.12.2015, sitting inside her house. According to him, the incident happened inside the private compound of parties and not in public view. The subtle distinction involved was explained by the Court in E.Krishnan Nayanar v. M.A.Kuttappan Member Kerala Legislative Assembly (1997(1) KLT 512). The same view was followed by Bombay High Court in Suryakanta v. State of Maharashtra (2011 KHC 329) and in Mahesh v. State of Maharashtra (2009 CriLJ 3831).
7. Another contention of the learned counsel was that there was no allegation that accused had intentionally abused her by degrading her as a member of the SC community. The settled legal position is that in the absence of evidence that accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intend to humiliate the complainant as a member of that caste, offence under Act is not attracted. This is reported in Ram Balachander v. State of MP (2012 KHC 2003), Asokan Nambiar v. State of Kerala (2005(1) KLT 12 and in Mohammad Kutty v. State of Kerala (2004(1) KLT 331). In Mohammed Kutty's case, it was held that a mere mention of caste of a person will not constitute the offence, unless there was an intention to humiliate or to insult. Definitely, intention is something which should be specifically alleged and can be gathered from the conduct of the parties or from attending circumstances.
8. The complaint does not contain any specific allegation that accused had such an intention. On the other hand, there are several circumstances to assume otherwise. Complainant has specifically alleged that accused was in the habit of harassing the tenants after 3-4 months of commencement of tenancy to ensure that they vacate without claiming the advance paid. She has alleged that accused used to
