1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as Cr.P.C.) has been preferred by the sole accused in C.P.No.54/2014 on the file of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery to quash the final report filed against him for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341,323,324 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act). The first respondent is the complainant. The second respondent is his wife (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim').

2. The facts of the case in brief, as advanced by the prosecution are that on 13.6.2014 at about 10.a.m while the defacto complainant was proceeding along with his ailing son to consult a Doctor, this petitioner/accused had wrongfully restrained him due to his enmity towards him as a result of the property dispute pending between them and assaulted him. When his wife rushed to the spot and tried to intervene to save him, the petitioner caught hold of her hair and torn off her dress with the intention to outrage her modesty. The petitioner who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe attacked the defacto complainant and his wife with the knowledge that they are members of Scheduled Caste. Thereupon on the basis of the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant Crime No.430/2014 was registered on 13.06.2014 by the Police Thamarassery under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 354 of IPC. After investigation final report was filed deleting Section 354 IPC but incorporating Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. Aggrieved by the filing of the final report under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, after deleting 354 IPC, the instant petition for quashing the final report has been preferred by him.

3. Heard Sri. T.G. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M.K. Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the materials on record.

4. Mr. T.G Rajendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that due to the pendency of the civil dispute between the parties they are on inimical terms. On 13.06.2014 when this petitioner was found plucking coconuts with the help of a coconut climber from the disputed property which is in his possession, the first respondent/de facto complainant questioned him and it resulted in a wordy altercation between them. But the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, he was falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that the investigating agency was right in deleting Section 354 of IPC but without materials on record, charged him under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. The plea for quashing the final report was advanced mainly on that ground.

5. The second ground advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though no medical evidence is available, he has been charged under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. So also there is no case for the witness that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained him, but he was charged for having committed offence under Section 341 of IPC. According to him, the above facts would indicate that the ingredients to attract offences under Sections 341,323 and 324 are also not made out. So in short, no materials are available to face trial, still final report has been filed. Hence the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra, Smt. M.K. Pushpalatha the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and submitted that this is a fit case which has to go for trial and the contentions raised are merit less as well. In fact Section 354 of IPC was deleted since a special provision has been provided for the said offence under the special Act. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is entitled to the relief of qu