The annoyance, obstruction, or insult must be done as part of the right accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of untouchability for the Act's provisions to apply.

ORDER :

Petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No.1564 of 2021 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (EO), Ernakulam. He filed a private complaint, alleging offences under sections 506(i) and section 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) apart from sections 7(1)(b) and 12 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Magistrate took cognizance only for the offence under section 506(i) of IPC. Petitioner challenges the refusal of the Magistrate to take cognizance of other offences alleged.

2. Petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste community. He alleged that he is a consumer of Indane Gas and had raised certain complaints against the dealer of Indane Gas with the office of the Indian Oil Corporation (for short ‘IOC’). Since his complaints were not redressed, petitioner decided to meet the Area Manager of IOC, and for that purpose, he went to the office of the said officer on 30.06.2020. However, the accused, who was the security supervisor of IOC, refused permission for the petitioner to enter the Office. Later, the accused gave a telephone number of a person to be contacted. When the petitioner contacted that person over phone, on the number provided by the accused, the response from the other end was by a lady who was annoying and aggressive. Therefore petitioner decided to visit the office of the Area Manager of IOC personally to complain. When the petitioner reached the office and informed the accused of the purpose of his visit, the accused attempted to attack the petitioner and he felt threatened, attracting the offence under section 506 IPC.

3. Petitioner also alleged that when he made a written complaint to the Senior Area Manager, a reply was issued by the General Manager, which was unsatisfactory. Therefore petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act, enquiring whether there was any restriction in permitting anyone to enter the office of the Area Manager. The reply issued did not inform about any such restriction, and hence, the petitioner alleges that he came to the knowledge that there was no restriction in permitting anyone inside the office of the Area Manager, and the decision not to let the petitioner inside the office was taken by the accused himself.

4. Petitioner further alleged in his complaint that the refusal to permit him to meet the Area Manager amounts to obstruction, annoyance and insult, thereby committing the offences under sections 7(1)(b) of the Act. Petitioner also alleges that when General Manager enquired with the accused about his behaviour, he had replied that his behaviour to the petitioner was courteous, which is false, and thereby, the offence under section 192 IPC has also been allegedly committed. On the basis of the above allegations, the petitioner sought to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused.

5. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 506(i) IPC alone. Petitioner challenges the proceedings taking cognizance of the offence under section 506(i) IPC alone and contends that the omission to take cognizance of the offences under the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 is illegal, and he seeks to set aside the order taking cognizance for the offence under section 506(i) IPC alone.

6. I have heard Sri. M.P. Chothy -the petitioner, who appeared as a party in person, Sri. Ashi M.C, learned Public Prosecutor as well as Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel for the first respondent.

7. The allegation raised in the complaint is that the accused had refused to permit the petitioner to enter the Area Manager's office to lodge a complaint. Petitioner has nowhere pleaded that he was granted permission by the Area Manager of IOC to visit him in his office. He had no prior appointment or permission even to claim a right of access to the Area Manager's office. Though it was contended that the petitioner had a right of access to the Area Manager's office, petitioner could not, during the