Point of Law: SC ST – Quash of Criminal case - Criminal proceedings arising out of SC/ST Act can be quashed invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India or S.482 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Dated this the 7th day of June, 2022 This Crl.M.C. has been filed to quash Annexure A1 FIR in Crime No.482/2021 of Mukkom Police Station, Kozhikode Rural u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

2. The petitioners are brothers. They have been arrayed as the accused in the crime mentioned above. The 4th respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. She is a member of a Scheduled Caste. The petitioners are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 376, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and S.3(1) (w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST Act). The crime was registered pursuant to a private complaint filed by the 4th respondent at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thamarassery. Annexure A2 is the copy of the private complaint.

4. Admittedly, the first petitioner got acquainted with the 4 th respondent during 2020 and the said relationship developed into intimacy. Later, they got married on 28/4/2021 at Sreekrishna Temple according to customary rites. Annexure A3 is the true copy of the relevant page of the marriage register.

5. The prosecution allegations in short are as follows: The first petitioner is a contractor and does works of aluminium fabrication. He got acquainted with the 4th respondent while she was working in a chit company. On 7/1/2021, the 4th respondent met the first petitioner at Family Court, Kozhikode. He offered to do the fabrication works of her house at a minimum rate. Following this, he reached the house of the 4th respondent on 9/1/2021 morning, took measurements of the fabrication works and went out to purchase materials. The 4th respondent was alone at the house at that time. When the first petitioner returned with materials for work, he asked for some more amount as the amount given to him by her was insufficient. The 4th respondent went inside the house to take money from the shelf in the bedroom. Then, he followed her, caught her, threatened to kill her by showing a knife and raped her. The 4th respondent was afraid of the first petitioner and hence she did not disclose the matter to anybody. Thereafter, the first petitioner took her to various places and sexually exploited her several times. When she became pregnant, she decided to file a complaint against him. In order to get over the legal action, the first petitioner married her on 28/4/2021 at Sreekrishna Temple. After the marriage, in the last week of May, the first petitioner absconded from the house, cutting off all communication with the 4th respondent deliberately and thereby cheated her. The second petitioner threatened to kill the 4th respondent when she tried to contact the first petitioner over the phone. It was thereafter the 4th respondent filed Annexure A2 private complaint at the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thamarassery. The petitioners seek to quash Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 complaint and all further proceedings pursuant to the same.

6. I have heard Sri. T.C.Govindaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Smt. K.L. Sreekala, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. C.Govindaswamy submitted that criminal proceeding in Annexures A1 and A2 has been initiated against the petitioners falsely and maliciously with an ulterior motive and not based on real facts. The counsel further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint even if taken at their face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioners. All the allegations against the petitioners are malicious, made with ulterior intention for blackmailing, taking advantage of the innocence of the petitioners and helplessness of their parents, submitted the counsel. Per contra, Smt. K.L. Sreekala, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent sub