IMPORTANT POINT
Insults must be targeted at a victim's Scheduled Caste or Tribe status to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

ORDER :

Crl.M.C.No.8843/2023 is at the instance of the accused in Cr.MP No.34/2019 on the files of the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (Unamended), Kottayam, (Sessions Court) and the prayers are as under:

“1. Quash the order, dated 13.07.2023, in SC No.390/2023, pending on the files of Court of Session, Kottayam, arising out of Crl.M.P.No.34 of 2019 (Annexure VII), and further proceedings therefrom.

2. Quash Crl.M.P.No.34 of 2019, pending on the files of Court of Session, Kottayam, arising out of crime no.237 of 2016 of Gandhinagar Police Station, Kottayam revenue district, and further proceedings therefrom”

2. Similarly, Crl.M.C.No.5063 of 2024 is at the instance of the complainant and the prayer is as under:

“set aside that part of Ann-III order of Court of Session, Kottayam, declining to take cognizance for the offence under Sec.3(1)(x) for the incident on 03.09.2014 and proceed in accordance with law.”

3. Before analysing the facts and the matter in issue, the parties in these matters will be referred hereinafter as “complainant” and “accused” for easy reference.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in both the cases.

5. On scanning the genesis of the case, it could be noticed that on 19.03.2016 (wrongly shown the date as 18.03.2014 in a crime of 2016), crime No.237/2016 was registered by Gandhi Nagar Police, Kottayam, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the complainant herein, who is a member of Scheduled Caste community, alleging that the accused herein, who is not either a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; and the Director of International and Inter-University Center for Nano-Science and Nano-Technology, Mahatma Gandhi University, insulted and intimidated the complainant, starting from 03/2014 (date is not so legible in A1 in Crl.M.C. No.5063/2024). In the complaint occurrences during August, 2013, 03.09.2014, 10.01.2015, November, 2014, 04.03.2015 and 07.03.2015 were narrated to contend that the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (Unamended). As per Annexure A1, in Crl.M.C.No.5063/2024, the police, after investigation, laid charge as ‘Further Action Dropped’ (FAD). Thereafter, the complainant lodged Crl.M.P.No.1418/2018, against the refer report, originally before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ettumanoor and then forwarded the same to the Special Court, Kottayam, wherein, the statement of the complainant was recorded and thereafter the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, without challenging the said dismissal, the same complainant filed the present complaint vide Crl.M.P.No.34/2019, alleging instances, whereby she was insulted and intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate her, being a member of the Scheduled Caste Community, within the public view.

6. While assailing the order taking cognizance and issuing summons, the learned counsel appearing for the accused read out the observations of the learned Special Judge in paragraph No.10, relying on the statements recorded as that of CW1 (the complainant herself), CW2 and CW3, holding the view that a mere assertion,even if made in the presence of others, that, slides presented by the complainant were plagiarised, the same could not lead to commission of offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act (unamended), unless, the other circumstances appearing on the face of the records prima facie show that, the accused had such an intention while making it. The learned counsel for the accused also pointed out that thus as per the order impugned, the learned Special Judge is of the view that as per the statements given by CW1 to CW3, offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act (Unamended) is not made out prima facie. However, the learned Special Judge gave much emphasis to the statement of CW5. Accordingly