IMPORTANT POINTS
The measurement was attempted by the petitioner with the help of the gundas accompanying him, but, was resisted by the victim and in the scuffle that followed, her dress was attempted to be removed. Culpable intention is unlikely to be attributed to the petitioner. The alleged act when viewed in the context can only be taken as occurred accidentally and not intentionally to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the victim. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason or basis for chargesheeting the petitioner for an offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act.

ORDER :

The prayer in the petition on hand is to quash all further proceedings in S.C.No.300/2012 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. S.C.No.300/2012 is a prosecution initiated on the basis of a final report laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Neyyattinkara alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the SC/ST (PA) Act). The sole accused chargesheeted for the offences is the petitioner and he has approached this Court in the petition on hand with the prayer aforesaid.

3. Crime No.290/2010 of Poovar Police Station was originally registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 456, 506(ii), 323 and 294(b) r/w Section 34 IPC against several persons including the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara and forwarded to Poovar Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After concluding investigation in the FIR, a final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara chargesheeting the petitioner alone for offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act. The case was committed to Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram by C.P.No.84/2011 and that Court took the case on file as S.C.No.300/2012.

4. It is urged by Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner that evenif the entire allegations in the final report are taken as true, any of the offences for which the petitioner was chargesheeted will not be attracted and therefore, the continuation of proceedings on it's basis will be an abuse of process of court. Accordingly, it is prayed to quash the final report and S.C.No.300/2012 pending on the files of Court of Sessions, Thiruvananathapuram.

5. In view of the argument tendered by the learned counsel on the inadequacy of the allegations to attract the offences, it is relevant to have a look at the allegations raised by the defacto complainant.

6. As stated earlier, the basis of registration of FIR is a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Neyyattinkara and forwarded to Poovar Police Station for investigation. The 2nd respondent herein was the defacto complainant who filed the complaint before the court. The allegations raised by the 2nd respondent are incorporated in paragraph 4 of the private complaint and is extracted hereinbelow:

IN OTHER LANGUAGE

7. The offence under the SC/ST (PA) Act for which the petitioner was chargesheeted is one punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act as it stands originally. Lateron, it was substituted by Act 1 of 2016 w.e.f 26.1.2016. The provision as it stood originally reads:

“(xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;”

8. Therefore, the ingredients constituting the offence are:

(1) assault or use of criminal force by the culprit, must have been against a woman who is a member of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.

(2) assault or criminal force, must have been with intent to dishonour or outrage the modesty of the woman.

9. Whether the ingredients above are attracted from the allegations incorporated in paragraph 4 supra is the primary question that needs consideration.

10. It is pertinent to note from the extract supra that the allegations are originally raised against the petitioner and certain identifiable gundas. According to the defacto complainant, she was insulted by calling the caste name after trespassing into her ancestral house and attempting to measure the properties. According to her when she resisted the attempt to measure the properties she was insulted by calling her caste name, assaulted, inflicted with bodily injuries and on herself fall